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 under section 147 of the Act is invalid on the ground that the assessee had disclosed all material facts also does not hold water. What is relevant for the purpose of the proviso to section 147 of the Act is not merely disclosure of primary facts as recorded in the registered sale deeds, but disclosure of true and full

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 under section 147 of the Act is invalid on the ground that the assessee had disclosed all material facts also does not hold water. What is relevant for the purpose of the proviso to section 147 of the Act is not merely disclosure of primary facts as recorded in the registered sale deeds, but disclosure of true and full

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)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 1692/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Dalpat Baraiya vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an Agriculturist and engaged in agriculture activities from his ancestral land. Since there is no other

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

u/s 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

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