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.

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

condone the delay of 1442 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 10. The assessee in the 1st and additional ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Asstt. Year 2012-13 7 11. The facts in brief in the present

SHRI BHAVNAGAR DASHASHRIMALI KANTHIBANDH (VAISHNAV) VANIK GNATI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 417 days (as computed by the Registry) in filing both appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the cases: 3.1 The assessee is a registered public charitable trust which was granted provisional registration under section 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) vide order in Form No. 10AC dated 13.01.2022, valid for assessment years

AIRONA TILES LIMITED,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE HIMATNAGAR PRESENTLY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AANCA 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah ARs Revenue by : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred

SHRI BHAVNAGAR DASHASHRIMALI KANTHIBANDH (VAISHNAV) VANIK GNATI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

condonation of delay, holding that when substantial justice and\ntechnical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of\nsubstantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim\nto have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate\ndelay. The Apex Court further observed that there is no presumption that\ndelay is occasioned

DEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

delay of 462 days in filling of the instant appeal seems to be bonafide, reasonable, sufficient and unintentional, hence deserves to be condoned. Consequently the same stands condoned. 5. On merits, the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 12 the paper book to submit that as at 31-03-2009, the assessee had reserves and surplus amounting

RAJESH AMARSINH PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

120(3)(a) of the Act? Whether the non-jurisdictional AO was legally correct in taw in issuing notice u/s 148 for impugned transaction which was already considered and accepted u/s 143(1) and in contravention to the Doctrine of Res Judicata? Whether the both AO were legally correct in law in transferring case from one office to another

DASRATHSINH GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-6, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

120 taxman.com 430, Food Corporation of India Limited vs. State of Punjab and Others (AIR 2001 SC 250). The show cause notice is the sole basis on which the revisionary proceedings are initiated and the same is without the force of conviction and, therefore, the entire proceedings become void ab initio. The Ld. AR submitted that consequent to the order

HARDE vs. INGH P. CHUDASAMA PROP. BHAVANI TRANSPORT,AHMEDABADVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 8. As regards to order passed u/s.263 of the Act, the Ld.AR submitted that the cash deposits was already examined by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s.144 of the Act dated 24.12.2019. The cash deposits were made during the demonetization period was on account of sales of diesel were given

SHREENATHJI ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

120 Assessed by AO 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against these independent orders of the AO. In all three assessment years (2013-14, 2014-15 Original, and 2014-15 Reassessment), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee’s failure to attend hearings, respond to notices, and comply with the requirements

SHREENATHJI ASSOCIATES ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

120 Assessed by AO 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against these independent orders of the AO. In all three assessment years (2013-14, 2014-15 Original, and 2014-15 Reassessment), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee’s failure to attend hearings, respond to notices, and comply with the requirements

SHREENATHJI ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

120 Assessed by AO 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against these independent orders of the AO. In all three assessment years (2013-14, 2014-15 Original, and 2014-15 Reassessment), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee’s failure to attend hearings, respond to notices, and comply with the requirements

ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JITENDRA SHANABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

120/- was treated as income from profits and gains of business or profession. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There is delay of 5 days and the assessee has filed condonation of delay application. The assessee has explained the reasons and the Ld. DR do not have any objection in condoning

SHARADBHAI KESHAVLAL LAKHANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1)(OLD WARD-7(2)(3)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 1231/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Sharadbhai Keshavlal Lakhani VS. ITO 2. There is a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was explained by the assessee that

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

120 (URO) and Digital Equipment India Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 103 TTJ 329. 5.2 The assessee further submitted that being a 100% EOU it has to file quarterly and annual reports of sales details with STPI in Software Export Declaration (SOFTEX) Form. After verifying and examining the details, the STPI grants certificate with regard to export, data link

PRAVINBHAI LADHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.10,34,390/- , which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO had received an information that the assessee hat advanced unsecured loan

SHRI BABUBHAI BHIMAJIBHAI MALI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Babubhai Bhimajibhai The Ito Mali V. Ward-1(2)(1) 120, M.G. Market, Ahmedabad-380015 Shanti Commercial Centre Gujarat Nagar Sheth Ho Vando Gheekanta Ahmedabad – 360 001 Gujarat Pan:Aappm 7611 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. Dr

120, M.G. Market, Ahmedabad-380015 Shanti Commercial Centre Gujarat Nagar Sheth HO Vando Gheekanta Ahmedabad – 360 001 Gujarat PAN:AAPPM 7611 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee by : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, CA Revenue by : Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt.Year 2015-16

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring total income at Rs.9,08,58,880/-. The assessee-company at the relevant time was engaged in manufacturing and trading of soft drink concentrate/mixes and bakery

BHURABHAI BHAGVANBHAI JOSHI,UNJHA vs. ITO, WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

section 145(3) and without pointing out any specific defects or inconsistencies in the accounts maintained by the Appellant.” 3. The assessee has not filed regular return of income. The proceedings u/s. 142(1) of the Act was initiated and accordingly notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued electronically on 08-03- 2018 requiring the assessee to file