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

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents

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

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents

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

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents

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

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

penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- on addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.17,70,150/- u/s. 69 of Income tax Act. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed complete details and documentary evidences before lower authorities during quantum proceedings duly justifying above cash deposits made as business receipts. It is therefore settled law that mere

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

2. The assessee has filed petitions seeking condonation of delay in respect of the appeals for A.Y. 2016–17, namely ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 (quantum appeal) and ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 (penalty appeal). As per the noting of the Registry, there is a delay of 150 days in filing ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and a delay of 54 days in filing

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

2. The assessee has filed petitions seeking condonation of delay in respect of the appeals for A.Y. 2016–17, namely ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 (quantum appeal) and ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 (penalty appeal). As per the noting of the Registry, there is a delay of 150 days in filing ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and a delay of 54 days in filing

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

2. The assessee has filed petitions seeking condonation of delay in respect of the appeals for A.Y. 2016–17, namely ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 (quantum appeal) and ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 (penalty appeal). As per the noting of the Registry, there is a delay of 150 days in filing ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and a delay of 54 days in filing