CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

GANDHARVA MAHAVIDHYALAYA TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

246A of the I. Tax as per clause1(c) of the section. Therefore CIT(A) cannot deprived the right of appellant to file the appeal. Hence the appellant's claim u/s. 10(23)(c) of Rs.57,57,960 be allowed. Asst.Year 2014-15 - 2– 3. The appellant has all the rights to file appeal when the CPC is not accepting

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. 3. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), he observed that the assessee had sought adornment on two occasions and accordingly, he passed an ex- parte order, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer with the following observations: “6. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. 3. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), he observed that the assessee had sought adornment on two occasions and accordingly, he passed an ex- parte order, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer with the following observations: “6. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis

SHRI R V SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.DIT, CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, EXEMP., BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Madhu Silica Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tax, Cpc 147, Gidc, Vartej Bengaluru Bhavnagar 364 060 (Current Jao : Ito (Exempt), Gujarat Bhavnagar Pan: Aaets 0593 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 19/01/2024 Passed By The Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [“Jcit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 17/10/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,48,175/-. The Said Return Was Processed By Cpc Bengaluru U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 03/03/2023 & Income Was Determined At Rs.13,64,912/-. This Was Due To Denial Of Exemption U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Assessee Had Filed An

246A of the Act. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various S, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed unsecured loan (Rs.3,29,49,233/-), at a total assessed income of Rs.10,76,71,643/-. 10. The assessee filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals) against the aforesaid assessment order. We are only concerned with addition related to unsecured loans for a sum of Rs. 3,29,13,945/- and hence we shall discuss that part of order

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowed unsecured loan (Rs.3,29,49,233/-), at a total assessed income of Rs.10,76,71,643/-. 10. The assessee filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals) against the aforesaid assessment order. We are only concerned with addition related to unsecured loans for a sum of Rs. 3,29,13,945/- and hence we shall discuss that part of order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

disallowed." 16.1 However, the undisputed fact is this that the assessee has not made any sales of the shares of the impugned company. Therefore, in our considered view the addition has been made by the AO which was consequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), on wrong assumption of facts. 16.2 It is also pertinent to note that the loss

KOSHAMBH CHARITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CPC, BAMGLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The National Faceless Appeal Centre .

246A on 05.02.2020 whereby that there is a delay of 676 days in filing the appeal which was not condoned by the NFAC on the ground that sufficient cause is not given by the assessee in filing the statutory appeal. Thus, appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as not maintainable by the NFAC. 5. Aggrieved against the same

BHARATKUMAR SOMABHAI PATEL,BANASHKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as in limine

disallowances and determining the assessed income at Rs. 54,34,300/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.1. As against the ex-parte order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) afforded six opportunities, the assessee failed to response to the hearing notices