RHV ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13A. Further, statements of certain key persons associated with SVPP, namely Shri Kalpesh Dashrath Parekh and Shri Jigar Kothiya, showed that the party was engaged in the racket of providing accommodation entries by way of bogus donations. The modus operandi involved routing the donation amounts through shell entities under the garb of political or social expenditure, with funds eventually returning

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance of HRA under Section 10(13A) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee resides in the house

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

13A under Chapter III of the Act. Section 14A was introduced retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1962 by Finance Act, 2001, for the purpose of computing the total income under Chapter IV. And, any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempted income, for the purpose of computing the total income, while applying section 14A, no deduction shall be allowed

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

13A under Chapter III of the Act. Section 14A was introduced retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1962 by Finance Act, 2001, for the purpose of computing the total income under Chapter IV. And, any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempted income, for the purpose of computing the total income, while applying section 14A, no deduction shall be allowed

MITULKUMAR AJITKUMAR DESAI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Conveyance Allowance. The Ld. AR explained that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,10,569/- in the assessment order on account of various deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the facts of the case, had already allowed substantial relief to the assessee. Therefore

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed and added to the total income." From the above notice of the assessing officer, issued under section 142 (1) of the Act, it is vivid that assessing officer had conducted enquiry only in respect of deduction under section 80D of the Act amounting to Rs.25,000/-, We note that assessee had paid donations

SAURABH PRAVINBHAI PATEL AND BRIJESH PRAVINBHAI PATEL AOP,ANAND vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter referred as the Act] relating to the Assessment year 2021-21. I.T.A No. 1017/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2 Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel And Brijesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP vs. Assessment Unit, ITD 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an Association of Person (AOP) engaged

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

13A). Each and every particular in respect of exemption was disclosed as per the provisions of law and each and every particular was correctly furnished. The order u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and be quashed. The order of the assessing officer be quashed. 2.4 The order u/s 271(1)(c) has been framed in violation of provisions