BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.192-193/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.441-1, Sector-22, Vs. Ward-1, Nr. Police Chowkey, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar.

penalty preferred by the assessee was filed late by 1607 days. However, the delay in the quantum appeal for the identical number of days has already been condoned

TEJAS KARSHANBHAI DARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed that delay occurred since he was waiting outcome of penalty order

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

M/S. S S STRIPS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. S.S. Strips Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Shyam Villa-2, Circle 4(1)(1), Opp. Krishna Bungalows, Ahmedabad Nr. Gala Gym Khana Club, Vs. Bopal Police Station Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 0943 L Assessee By Shri Kishore Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022

condoning the delay. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was right in passing ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice by confirming an illegal penalty

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

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

condoning the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal. Because of the I.T.(SS)A No. 54/Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2015-16 Page No 3 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane vs. ITO non-communication by the former Tax Consultant, the assessee filed the quantum appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 326 days and Penalty

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present 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 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

penalty u/s 272(c) is erroneously done.” 8. At the outset itself, it was noted that the present appeal was delayed for filing by 485 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit before us of the Director of the assessee-company Shri Vishal Mukeshkumar Shah outlining therein the reason leading to the delay in the filing

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay of 79 days in filing the appeals. Because of the non- communication by the former Tax Consultant, the assessee filed the quantum appeals before the Tribunal with a delay of 326 days and Penalty

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay of 79 days in filing the appeals. Because of the non- communication by the former Tax Consultant, the assessee filed the quantum appeals before the Tribunal with a delay of 326 days and Penalty

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condoning the delay in filing the same. He pointed out that the quantum appeal of the assessee was delayed for filing by 901 days, while the penalty

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condoning the delay in filing the same. He pointed out that the quantum appeal of the assessee was delayed for filing by 901 days, while the penalty

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay of 389 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether the ITO was legally correct in arbitrarily issuing the summons in contravention

M/S. ROSY ROYAL MINERALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty be deleted.” 3. It was pointed out by the assessee/Ld. AR that the present appeal is filed beyond the usual statutory limit. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 1257 days in filing the present appeal. Ld. AR further submitted that the affidavit of Naresh Chadulal Zaveri, Director of the assessee company has filed the condonation

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:

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was also noted that a similar delay existed in the penalty

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:

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was also noted that a similar delay existed in the penalty

BHARATKUMAR SOMABHAI PATEL,BANASHKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as in limine

delay of 7 years and 2 months was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) as against the levy of penalty

JAGRUTI SANJAYKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty order, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 147and under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. At the outset, Shri K. C. Thakkar, Learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay

JAGRUTI SANJAYKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty order, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 147and under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. At the outset, Shri K. C. Thakkar, Learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay