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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

3 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, In view of the discussion above, I see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the AO and I am of the opinion that the penalty was correctly levied, by the AO. The penalty of Rs.10,72,242/- levied u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act is confirmed

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

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

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 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

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

249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if it is paid before the due date, which

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

249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if it is paid before the due date, which