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 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

THE ITO, WARD- 2,, NADIAD vs. SHRI AVINISHKUMAR GUNVANTRAY JOSHI,, NADIAD

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Property' due to her earlier, and which was a liability of the family pending from Marriage. Considering the above facts & circumstances penalty proceedings may be dropped & oblige. " 5. The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted in view of clear cut provisions u/s.269T of the Act that the payment of cash above Rs.20,000/- is permissible only in certain circumstances/by

THE ITO, WARD- 2,, NADIAD vs. SHRI AVINISHKUMAR GUNVANTRAY JOSHI,, NADIAD

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Property' due to her earlier, and which was a liability of the family pending from Marriage. Considering the above facts & circumstances penalty proceedings may be dropped & oblige. " 5. The contention of the assessee cannot be accepted in view of clear cut provisions u/s.269T of the Act that the payment of cash above Rs.20,000/- is permissible only in certain circumstances/by

THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR RASIKLAL LAKHANI,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014-15. I.T.A No. 2903/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. Shri Alpeshkumar Rasiklal Lakhani 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Partners in various Firms engaged in Construction