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 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

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under the CRIU/VRU High

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under the CRIU/VRU High

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under the CRIU/VRU High

GOPALLAL BHERUBHAI KUMAVAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

1)(c) of the Act. It is therefore submitted that the penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- is incorrect on facts and illegal under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the same be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- on addition