RAHUL MONAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION : THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147 of the Act. Therefore the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021. 3. In response, the assessee filed his Return of Income as declared in the original return but also claimed deduction u/s. 54F on long term capital gain of Rs.1,40,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer held though

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 is bad in law due to lack of proper opportunity and misidentification of assessment year of the transaction. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee appeared in person and reiterated

RAJNIKANT RAICHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 54F of the Act made while computing the Long Term Capital Gains. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee initially filed the original Income Tax Return (ITR) on 19.05.2015 for AY 2015-16, declaring a total income

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

SHRI BABUBHAI SHANTILAL SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

54F of the Act. However Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made u/s. 55A of the Act. Further appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal, the addition of Rs. 40,40,225 made u/s. 55A was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.06.2019 in ITA No. 727/Ahd/2016 and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee

VIDHI PRAGNESH MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.A No. 1917/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and filed her Return of Income for the Asst. Year

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his original Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2018-19 on 17-07-2018 I.T.A No. 1140/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page