CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte\nunder section 144.\n5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and / or on facts in upholding\nthe invocation of the provisions of Section 115BBE.\n5.2 That in the law and /or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld\nthe invocation of the provisions

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

house property. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared and argued that for both the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the facts and issues for consideration are similar. Since the facts in both the years are identical the observations and ratio

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

house property. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared and argued that for both the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the facts and issues for consideration are similar. Since the facts in both the years are identical the observations and ratio

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

house property. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared and argued that for both the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the facts and issues for consideration are similar. Since the facts in both the years are identical the observations and ratio

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

house property. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared and argued that for both the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the facts and issues for consideration are similar. Since the facts in both the years are identical the observations and ratio

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

house property. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared and argued that for both the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the facts and issues for consideration are similar. Since the facts in both the years are identical the observations and ratio

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

house property. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. 20. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared and argued that for both the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the facts and issues for consideration are similar. Since the facts in both the years are identical the observations and ratio

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

housing loan available to the assessee but the same was not utilized for the purpose of the investment in the property. In this connection we note that the AO has made charts for different assessment years in which the assessee has sold different lands. These charts are available on pages 51 and 52 of the assessment order. The allegation that

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/ or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set a side the assessment as per Section 25 1(1) (a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred