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

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 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

PRASHANT CHANDULAL PARIKH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 369/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Prashant Chandulal Assistant Commissioner Of Parikh, Huf Income Tax Vs. C/O M/S. Chandulal J Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Parikh, 303 Ushadep Complex, Nr. Navrangpura, Railway Crossing, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadhp9467M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rajendera K Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 /11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

property as on 01.04.1981 @ 6.20 per sq. mtr. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.2.51 Crore under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in respect of residential house purchased during the year. It was found by the AO that the actual construction on the purchased land was confined to the area

AMISH PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL,PETLAD vs. ITO PETLAD, PETLAD

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

Section 143(3) of\nthe Act on 29.03.2016, determining an assessed income of Rs.65,21,330/-.\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO)\nmade two primary additions namely\ni. Unexplained Investment in Land – Rs.55,48,300/-.\nii. Undisclosed Sale of Property – Rs.5,59,565/- as Short-Term Capital\nGain (STCG).\n3.\nThe assessee preferred an appeal before