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

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

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

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

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

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

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

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

MUKESH MOHANLAL VAGHELA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 69Con account of Unexplained expenditure based on entries in the ledger "Mukeshbhai Ratanjyot" in the diaries seized from the premises of Shri Prakash Sanghvi. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking s. 115BBE in respect of the said addition. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that

SUNILKUMAR BHAGCHAND TALREJA,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

69C of the Act. Subsequently, proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was initiated through notice on 30-03-2022 for penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed his reply on 27-08- 2022. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the Act thereby imposing

SUNILKUMAR BHAGCHAND TALREJA,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

69C of the Act. Subsequently, proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was initiated through notice on 30-03-2022 for penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed his reply on 27-08- 2022. After taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the Act thereby imposing

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating

NILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURIDIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

69C of the Act. The assessment was completed under section\n147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2022 at a total income\nof Rs.6,51,36,989/-.\n4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had\nfiled an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by\nthe Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Penalty proceedings are also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Penalty proceedings are also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having