SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

131 days in ITA No. 1278/Ahd/2024. The assessee filed an affidavit for condoning the delay which are reproduced as under: “1) I, Manas Kumar Das aged about 45 years, identified by PAN - AIGPD6407Q at present residing at Address: Flat No-1202,Bhoomi Orabelle, Opp SB Patil Public School Road, SB Patil School, Ravet, Po-Dehu Road Cantt, Pune, MAHARASHTRA

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

131 days in ITA No. 1278/Ahd/2024. The assessee filed an affidavit for condoning the delay which are reproduced as under: “1) I, Manas Kumar Das aged about 45 years, identified by PAN - AIGPD6407Q at present residing at Address: Flat No-1202,Bhoomi Orabelle, Opp SB Patil Public School Road, SB Patil School, Ravet, Po-Dehu Road Cantt, Pune, MAHARASHTRA

ATUL N. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 952 & 953/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Atul N. Shah, 45, Mahalaya Bungalows, Jcit, Vs. Nr. High Court, Sola, Range 4(2), Ahmedabad-380060 Ahmedabad Pan : Ajqps 4627 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 26955 and, therefore, it would not be a fit case to levy penalty on them. [Para 28] 2) Sneh Builders in ITAT 520/PN/2008 & 456/PN/2008 Relevant extract reproduced for reference: “7. After going through rival submissions and material on record we find that certain cheques were claimed to have been issued as security for the entire Sneh group

ATUL N. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 952 & 953/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Atul N. Shah, 45, Mahalaya Bungalows, Jcit, Vs. Nr. High Court, Sola, Range 4(2), Ahmedabad-380060 Ahmedabad Pan : Ajqps 4627 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 26955 and, therefore, it would not be a fit case to levy penalty on them. [Para 28] 2) Sneh Builders in ITAT 520/PN/2008 & 456/PN/2008 Relevant extract reproduced for reference: “7. After going through rival submissions and material on record we find that certain cheques were claimed to have been issued as security for the entire Sneh group

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

ABDULMANNAN MOHAMMEDKASAM BASTAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act imposed by Ld. AO.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred substantial expenditure totaling to Rs. 19,96,363/- through several credit cards held by the assessee, during the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer observed that on examination of records

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial