M/S. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs. THE JT.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

271D are not lawful as the appellant did not have taken at all any unsecured loans from its Directors. The CIT(A) has also not considered the legality of the case and disposed the appeal by dismissing appeal which is not reasonable. 3. As the penalties imposed were void, illegal or inoperative since inception of the proceedings

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. M/S. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

271D are not lawful as the appellant did not have taken at all any unsecured loans from its Directors. The CIT(A) has also not considered the legality of the case and disposed the appeal by dismissing appeal which is not reasonable. 3. As the penalties imposed were void, illegal or inoperative since inception of the proceedings

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI ANIRUDHSINGH P. PADHIYAR,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2),, PETLAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee/ appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

disallowance of Rs. 20,39,180/-. And in appeal, ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the appellant/assessee and made addition of Rs. 10,19,590/-. In order to meet the ends of justice and appellant/assessee has furnished details with regard to expenses incurred by him for his business activities. We give relief of Rs. 4,00,000/- and remaining amount

HIMANSHU ENGINEERING WORKS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The AO omitted to analyse this aspect in the assessment order and simply accepted the assessee’s explanation without appreciating that the language of section 36(1)(va) of the Act is plain and unambiguous. Fourthly, on perusal of P&L Account, it was noticed that the assessee had credited

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

271D and 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 2697T. In view of the above facts as the order passed by the AO on 10/02/2015 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, a notice u/s.263 of the Act dated 09/03/2017 was issued intimating the above grounds, and calling upon the assessee to show