MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

capital gain of Rs 66,78,350/- is against\nthe documents available on records and therefore the heavy addition made of\nRs 66,78,350/-requires to be deleted.\n08. That the appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of Income\nas well as not concealed and Income and therefore the penalty proceedings\nInitiated

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time

SHRI IKBALBHAI JUMABHAI KHIRANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 30.08.2024, which Shri Ikabalbhai Jumabhai Khirani vs. ITO in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 14.03.2023. 2. Grounds of appeal raised