DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order 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

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

section 144 of the Act was completed determining the loss at (-)Rs.11,72,67,828/-. That assessment was challenged before this Tribunal and the case was set-aside vide order dated 01.08.2014 in ITA No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 and accordingly assessment was finalized u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the total loss was determined at (-) Rs.22

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac