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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

282 days (in ITA Nos. 210/Ahd/2020, 211/Ahd/2020 & 214/Ahd/2020) and 332 days (in ITA Nos. 212/Ahd/2020, 213/Ahd/2020, 215/Ahd/2020, 216/Ahd/2020, 217/Ahd/2020 & 218/Ahd/2020). The assessee has submitted similar Affidavits for the impugned years under consideration in which it has been submitted that the order passed Ld. CIT(A) was to be handed over by the assessee to the concerned Tax Practitioner for filing

DILIPKUMAR BABABHAI ZAVERI,PATAN, GUJARAT vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer,\nas the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests\nof the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being\nheard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems\nnecessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case\njustify

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price as mentioned in the seized documents. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,04,282/- in the hands of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5.3 Further, with regard to appellant's claim regarding correct jurisdiction