SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were found from the personal laptop of the director who has also admitted to disclose a sum of Rs.2.98 crores along with other directors on account of cash income. Thus, under the provisions of section 132 (4A) of the Act it is presumed

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

69B of the Act. (iii) The assessee during the financial year 2011-12 relevant to the asst, year 2012-13 has earned, exempted income of Rs. 19,88,178/- in the form of dividend u/s 10(34) of the Act. On further verification, it was seen that the assessee had not made any disallowance

RAHUL MANSUKHBHAI RAIYANI,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

Bench: The A.O. Therefore The A.O. Made Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.3,04,279/-, Unexplained Investment Of Rs.1,34,03,090/- & Unexplained Cash Credit Of Rs.1,28,68,843/- & Determined The Total Income As Rs.2,74,10,818/- & Demanded Tax Thereon.

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 541/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Rahul Mansukhbhai Raiyani vs. DCIT 2. The Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of property Developers and Retailers

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,986/- made by the A.O. @ 20% of the expenses on telephone/mobile. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69B of the Act for the alleged

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,986/- made by the A.O. @ 20% of the expenses on telephone/mobile. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69B of the Act for the alleged

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,986/- made by the A.O. @ 20% of the expenses on telephone/mobile. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69B of the Act for the alleged

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,986/- made by the A.O. @ 20% of the expenses on telephone/mobile. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69B of the Act for the alleged

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,986/- made by the A.O. @ 20% of the expenses on telephone/mobile. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69B of the Act for the alleged

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

depreciation @ 25%. 24.3 The ld. DR was unable to distinguish the said decision before us. In view of the same, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations and fittings in hotel buildings of the assessee by applying rate of 15% as against 25% applied by the assessee treating

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

depreciation @ 25%. 24.3 The ld. DR was unable to distinguish the said decision before us. In view of the same, we agree with the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the disallowance of depreciation on electrical installations and fittings in hotel buildings of the assessee by applying rate of 15% as against 25% applied by the assessee treating