DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Section 163 of the Act, the assessee being an Agent in relation to the Non-Residents namely his brother Shri Mahesh Vitthaldas Desai and Smt. Smita Mahesh Desai, the assessee is liable to pay tax, if the owners who sold the property have failed to pay the respective taxes being a Representative Assessee. However neither the owners of the property

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment provisions under section 151A of the Act and mechanical approval under section 151 of the Act, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that

ROHIT PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment and not by the reasons or explanations given by the AO at a later stage in respect of notice of the assessment. The Hon’ble High Court has also held that the sufficiency or correctness of the material/information available with the Assessing Officer was not to be considered at that stage. We have to, therefore, examine whether the Assessing