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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

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)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

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)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

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)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

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.

39 11. In ground no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- received as donation to corpus from BCCI is not exempt, since the provisions of section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant

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.

39 11. In ground no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- received as donation to corpus from BCCI is not exempt, since the provisions of section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant

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.

39 11. In ground no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- received as donation to corpus from BCCI is not exempt, since the provisions of section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant

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.

39 11. In ground no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- received as donation to corpus from BCCI is not exempt, since the provisions of section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant

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.

39 11. In ground no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- received as donation to corpus from BCCI is not exempt, since the provisions of section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant

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.

39 11. In ground no. 4, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- received as donation to corpus from BCCI is not exempt, since the provisions of section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant