SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gains was offered to tax in the return or whether it was properly accounted for. More crucially, since A.Y. 2011-12 was an unabated year for the purposes of section 153A proceedings, the AO could not have made any additions unless incriminating documents were found during the search. The assessment record does not mention any such incriminating material that

DARPAN KANUBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

section 54B of the Act as the assessee has purchased Agriculture Land within two years.” 3. The facts of the case are that assessment u/s 147 of the Act was framed in the case of the assessee, noting that the assessee had sold an immovable property (land) for Rs.57,55,000/- and no return of income had been filed

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

3(b) of Section 32(1): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of intangible assets. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 14  Section 43(6)(c)(ii): Definition of WDV of the block of assets has been amended to provide that written down value of Goodwill is required to be reduced from

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

3(b) of Section 32(1): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of intangible assets. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 14  Section 43(6)(c)(ii): Definition of WDV of the block of assets has been amended to provide that written down value of Goodwill is required to be reduced from

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

3(b) of Section 32(1): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of intangible assets. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 14  Section 43(6)(c)(ii): Definition of WDV of the block of assets has been amended to provide that written down value of Goodwill is required to be reduced from

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

3(b) of Section 32(1): 'Goodwill of a Business or Profession' has been specifically excluded from the definition of intangible assets. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 14  Section 43(6)(c)(ii): Definition of WDV of the block of assets has been amended to provide that written down value of Goodwill is required to be reduced from

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

section 249(3) of the Act. The delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence but occasioned by genuine circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

section 249(3) of the Act. The delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence but occasioned by genuine circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

249/- made by A.O, on account of product registration expenses.\n4.\nThe Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.212,82,47,627/- made by A.O. on account of deduction u/s 80IA.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.64,33,028/- made

ARVINDSINH ISHVARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

249(4)(b). The ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that the appellant had not filed his ITR for AY 2012-13 In view of no taxable income so that he was not liable to pay even advance tax therefore, there was no liability to pay the amount equal to advance tax as per sec.249(4)(b). 3.2. That

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

249 ITR 216 (SC) ii. TIBCO Software India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 170 TTJ 432 (Pune) 23. Per Contra, Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the AO had provided numerous opportunities to the assessee to explain the transactions in foreign bank accounts. However, the assessee never provided the required details and was in perpetual denial mode