SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

TDS had also been\ndeducted, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation such\nas work details, expenditure incurred, or material purchases to substantiate\nthe contract income received by him. Further, the Assessing Officer noted\nthat the assessee had invested a sum of ₹1.42 crore in two fixed deposits and\nreceived ₹17 lakh as maturity proceeds, yet the assessee provided

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

TDS had also been\ndeducted, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation such\nas work details, expenditure incurred, or material purchases to substantiate\nthe contract income received by him. Further, the Assessing Officer noted\nthat the assessee had invested a sum of ₹1.42 crore in two fixed deposits and\nreceived ₹17 lakh as maturity proceeds, yet the assessee provided

SUMAN NANDLAL RAVAL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned

SUMAN NANDLAL RAVAL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned

MANSHA TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 249(3) to admit a belated appeal upon sufficient cause. After an extensive survey of authorities, the CIT(A) held that the explanation of internal discord, without any legal restraint or credible corroboration, did not constitute “sufficient cause”. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not produced any injunction, resolution or directive that prevented timely filing, and that

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

249(4)\nof the Act ignoring fact that appellant has no taxable income\nand accordingly not liable for filing return of income.\n\n6. Ld. NFAC failed to pass order as per the provision of section\n250(6) of the Act and appellant prays that same may be set\naside to the file of CIT (A) / NFAC for readjudication

JAYENDRA BIPINCHANDRA PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITOWARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned

JAYENDRA BIPINCHANDRA PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITOWARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned

CHHAGANLAL BHIMABHAI DANGODARA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned

CHHAGANLAL BHIMABHAI DANGODARA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.CIT(A, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. We have gone through the records and considering the merits of the case, we condoned

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 249(4) (a) of the Act and, thus, dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2010-11 3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the self-assessment tax has been paid. In this regard he drew out attention

RADHE FINSEC INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs. 4,12,868/- was paid off 3. The Income Tax Officer, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru issued an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act dated 15.12.2014 to the company, wherein they doubly counted the income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs 64,59 670/- and calculated the total amount of tax liability upon

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

249 ITR 125 CIT Vs Jalaram Oil Mills 253 ITR 192 4. The penalty order is bad in law in as much as there is no specific charge as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. CIT Vs Manu Engg. 122 ITR 506 (Guj) Sorathia Engg

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS credit in the year in which corresponding income has been offered. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in partly confirming disallowance in respect of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.42,48,117/- (i.e. 25%) out of total purchases of Rs.1

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS credit in the year in which corresponding income has been offered. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in partly confirming disallowance in respect of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.42,48,117/- (i.e. 25%) out of total purchases of Rs.1

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,,WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANAK CASTOR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedasst.Year : 2008-09

249 of the paper book. The AO has not pointed out any defect in the details furnished by the assessee. In the event, the AO had any doubt on the genuineness of such expenses, he was empowered under section 133 (6)/131 of the Act to carry out the necessary verification. But he has not done so. 9.13 Coming

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated