MOHAN RAMCHANDANI,BANGLORE vs. ACIT-INTL TAX-2 AHEMDABAD, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

disallowed, and the total income was 4 assessed at Rs.2,54,56,330/-. Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F

HARSHADKUMAR HARGOVANDAS PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act were\nalso initiated separately.\n12.\nIn appeal, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had failed to substantiate the\ngenui-neness of the claimed expenditure of ₹3,05,400/- with credible\nevidence. The handwritten bills relied upon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 1,86,710/- on account of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus determined the assessed income as Rs. 1,68,10,620/- u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and also charged interest of u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings

BHIKHABHAI H PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,774/- under chapter VIA of the Act. 13. Ld. NFAC erred in confirming action of AO to treat agriculture income of Rs. 4,62,830/- as income from other sources. 14. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C are unjustified. 15. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F

LALITABEN DIPAKBHAI MODH,SURAT vs. PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271F for not filing the return will within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Further the A.O. issued various notices to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed letter dated 15-12-2021 which reads as follows: “Reply of Point No 3 & 4:- with reference to your observation regarding, we had earned fictitious Profits an equity/derivative