M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 80IB(10) as there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts to confirm that the penalty on income of Rs.15,61,500/- cannot be levied on sales shown in F.Y. 2010- 11 but treated by A.O. in F.Y. 2009-10 on different stand as there

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

150 were found and seized and inventoried as Annexute- A-4. Page no.75 to 79 of the said Annexure-A-4 is regarding MoU dated 02.05.2016, regarding property situated at Plot No. 141, T.P.No.-8, F.P.No.54, Umarwada. In the aforesaid MoU, first party (lease taker of the property) were partners of firm Ketan Textile i.e. Nareshkumar Vishveshwarlal Agarwal

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

150 ITR 714 (P & H), Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT, 293\nITR 565, GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, 65 ITD 380, CIT vs. Kuber Fibers Pvt. Ltd., 77\ntaxmann.com 345, Kanungo & Co. vs. Collector of Customs, (1983) ELT 1486 (SC)\nand rejected the plea of assessee regarding lack of cross-examination.\n4.2 As regards plea of lack

BHARATBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

1)(ii)(b). 6. The ld Counsel has filed the petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons of delay in filing the appeal before NFAC/ld CIT(A), which is reproduced below: “1.Appellant is an agriculturist and has no economic activity or business. Assessee has deposited cash of Rs.10,40,000/- into his bank account number