SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay of 2337 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 13. Coming to issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. The issue in the instant case raises two situations as detailed under: 1- Whether the assessment made under section 143(3) read with section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144 on 03.01.209. The contention of the appellant that he was misguided by the Chartered accountant is not supported with any evidence has not tenable. It is well settled law that delay in filing the appeal can be condoned if there is a reasonable and sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that

MUKHTIYARODIN AJIMODIN MALEK,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(4), PETLAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2008-09

144 read with Section 263 of the Act. In March 2020 due to Covid 2019 unfortunately the other CA Shri Nazir Malek passed away and, therefore, on 12.09.2020 the assessee filed application for delay condonation

CAT COSMETICS AND HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(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 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. I.T.A No. 1189/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 CAT Cosmetics And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: Your appellant being aggrieved by the order of Ld. Commissioner

SHRI KHAMBHAT TALUKA SARVAJANIK KELAVANI MANDAL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay. He submitted that when the accountant had been negligent before the AO and also before the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in ex-parte orders, the assessee should have taken precaution to ensure that the present appeal was filed within time. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee cannot escape by merely passing on the blame

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144 read with 263 and 144B and treated the entire sum of Rs.169,75,68,149/- as unexplained money under section 69A. The amount was brought to tax under section 115BBE, and penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B were initiated, besides levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

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

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated

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

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

144 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act. Similarly, there was a delay of 27 months in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against penalty order dated 23.9.2015. The assessee has filed application for condonation

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

144 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act. Similarly, there was a delay of 27 months in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against penalty order dated 23.9.2015. The assessee has filed application for condonation

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

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

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

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144 and 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023 and treated cash deposits aggregating to Rs.186,78,95,978/- as unexplained money under section 69A ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 5– of the Act, time deposits of Rs.272,59,22,944/- as unexplained investments under section