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

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

2) was issued on 30.09.2014 and served on the same date. Thereafter notices under section 142(1) were issued on 07.10.2014 and 30.10.2014 calling for audited accounts, audit report and other particulars. 2.2 On verification of Form 26AS and the details on the ITD system, the AO found that rent aggregating to Rs. 57,57,850/- stood reflected against

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Appellant is making a new claim, ignoring that appellate authorities have plenary powers to grant all legitimate reliefs, even if not claimed in the return, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955 and upheld by various judicial precedents including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Appellant is making a new claim, ignoring that appellate authorities have plenary powers to grant all legitimate reliefs, even if not claimed in the return, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955 and upheld by various judicial precedents including decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

249/- to the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AE, HLPL and SIMPL. The upward adjustment proposed by the TPO are tabulated in his order as under: ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 6 10. The assessee objected to the proposed upward adjustment to the DRP, who noted that this issue was under consideration before the DRP consistently

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

249/- to the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AE, HLPL and SIMPL. The upward adjustment proposed by the TPO are tabulated in his order as under: ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 6 10. The assessee objected to the proposed upward adjustment to the DRP, who noted that this issue was under consideration before the DRP consistently

ITO(E),VADODARA, RACE CIURSE VADODARA vs. TAKSHSHILA FOUNDATION(NGO), KARELIBAUGH, VADODARA

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

TDS of Rs. 7,444/-. 2.2. The CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act concluding that the assessee failed to e-file the Audit Report in form 10B one month prior to the due date of filing the return u/s.139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application u/s.154 of the Act against order/ intimation

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

2. ITA Nos.2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025 in the case Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria dated 17.02.2026 3. ITA No.2389 & 2390/Ahd/2014 in the case of Suman Nandlal Raval dated 18.02.2026 6. After careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, it is noted that the identical issue was considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025

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

2. ITA Nos.2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025 in the case Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria dated 17.02.2026 3. ITA No.2389 & 2390/Ahd/2014 in the case of Suman Nandlal Raval dated 18.02.2026 6. After careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, it is noted that the identical issue was considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025

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

2. ITAT No. 42/Chd/2025 AY 2021-22 in the case of Harish Kumar V/s. ITO Chandigarh dated 30.05.2025. 3. Salimmahmad Abdulrazak Hafeji Vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 12.12.2025 4. Sham Lal vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 19.11.2025 5. Shreedhar Vs. Addl/JCIT(A) Mumbai dated 23.12.2025 6. ITA No.1472/Ahd/2014 in the case of Vishnu Mohan T Nair

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

2. ITAT No. 42/Chd/2025 AY 2021-22 in the case of Harish Kumar V/s. ITO Chandigarh dated 30.05.2025. 3. Salimmahmad Abdulrazak Hafeji Vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 12.12.2025 4. Sham Lal vs. Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 19.11.2025 5. Shreedhar Vs. Addl/JCIT(A) Mumbai dated 23.12.2025 6. ITA No.1472/Ahd/2014 in the case of Vishnu Mohan T Nair

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

249% increase. Further, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had nominal cash sales of Rs.7,46,179/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 and the cash sales which was made during the period 22.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 reached an unimaginable amount of Rs.31,28,37,385/- (against cash sales of Rs.3,11,82,382/- for the same period in the immediately preceding

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

249% increase. Further, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had nominal cash sales of Rs.7,46,179/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 and the cash sales which was made during the period 22.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 reached an unimaginable amount of Rs.31,28,37,385/- (against cash sales of Rs.3,11,82,382/- for the same period in the immediately preceding

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

BHAVESH K SHAH,AKOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), ALKAPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961r.w.s.5 of Limitation Act and hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby rejected.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The brief facts

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)

2 For the Asst. Year 2013-14, the company filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 disclosing an amount of Rs. 32,41,080/- u/s. 115JB as against the normal returned income of Rs. 32,18,589/- and paid appropriate tax of Rs.9,94,545/- which after deducting credit u/s I.T.A No. 506/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Radhe

TARPAWANKUMAR RAMPRASAD SANDHIR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

249, Bhavanpura Pith, Ahmedabad Opp. Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad-380001 PAN : ACVPS 7030 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Written submission on record Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GHANSHYAM MOHANBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kambleit(Ss)A No. 1/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ghanshyam Mohanbhai Patel, Dy./Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. 901, Suryaketu Tower, Income-Tax, Nr. Sambhav Press, Judges Central Circle 2(4), Bungalow, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan : Abbpp 5403 G]

249/-, by making disallowance of Rs.31,38,785/- u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed