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

section 148A and sec. 148 of the IT Act 1961 and therefore the\nassessment made may please be quashed.\n07. That the assessee is an agriculturist and sold the agriculture land which is\nexempt however without appreciating the facts, and without making further\ninquiry addition made as short term capital gain of Rs 66,78,350/- is against\nthe documents

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

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 of hearing has not advanced

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

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 of hearing has not advanced

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

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 of hearing has not advanced

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

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 of hearing has not advanced

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