ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 on 23.03.2016 after recording reasons and obtaining approval as required under the Act. Since the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, a notice under section 142(1) read with section 148 of the Act dated 21.06.2016 was issued. In response

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 on 23.03.2016 after recording reasons and obtaining approval as required under the Act. Since the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, a notice under section 142(1) read with section 148 of the Act dated 21.06.2016 was issued. In response

LATE SHRI RANJITSINH BHAWANSINH VAGHELA THRU L/H BHARATSINH R. VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

54B to the extent of the registered sale deed value of Rs.59,86,160/- and recomputing the deduction allowable under section 54F at Rs.29,00,637/-. The CIT(Appeals) accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Late Shri Ranjitsinh Bhawansih Vaghela (L/h. Through Bharatsinh R. Vaghela) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– 5. The assessee is in appeal before

DALPAT BARAIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the reinvestment in agricultural land was not accepted since the sale of the land was converted into non-agricultural purpose, therefore the claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act was denied by observing as follows: “I have perused the assessment order

HITESHBHAI MULAJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred as the Act] relating to the assessment year 2011–12. I.T.A No. 103/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Hiteshbhai Mulajibhai Patel vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and agriculturist, deriving income

ARVINDBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:- “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is bad & illegal