GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case may be, in section 153B for making the order of assessment or reassessment

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

reassessment proceedings. However, learned counsel for the assessee submits that he does not wish to press these grounds of appeal. Accordingly, these three grounds of appeal are summarily dismissed for want of prosecution. 132. Ground nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. 133. In ground nos 4 to 9, the assessee has raised grievance against the CIT(A) upholding proviso

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the contents of the seized documents relating to undisclosed consideration on the sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/- and has observed that the relevant seized material (Annexure