SHRI DEVENDRA THAKERSHIBHAI THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 145(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Condonation of Delay

PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Final Appeal.

section 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be I.T.A No. 448/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 4 Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea

THAKKAR MUKESHBHAI KESHAVLAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal Huf Ito, Ward-3(3)(5) 456, 45Th Floor, Titanium City Centre Vs. Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Nr.Sachin Tower Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaht 1750 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2025

section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds: 1. Both the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition made of Rs.59,70,000/-towards cash deposited in bank account under S.69A and taxed under S.115BBE without appreciating that the appellant had duly discharged

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI CHIMANBHAI JOITRAM PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 591/Ahd/2020 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Years : 2014-15)

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 56,95,814/- on estimated basis after rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145

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

ASHOKKUMAR RAGHUNATHDAS AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, AAYKAR BHAWAN, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Ashokkumar Raghnathdas Agrawal Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3)(4) B-59, 3Rd Floor, Ahmedabad. Sumel Business Park-1 B/H. New Cloth Market Raipur, Ahmedabad Pan : Abhpa 1665 R

delay in filing the appeal of 10 days is hereby condoned. 7. The assessee has filed the following additional grounds of appeal: “The Hon' CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Id. AO without considering that the entire assessment proceedings and consequential assessment order are bad in law, and void

ADVANCE LIFESPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 Advance Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of S-202/B/4/205, City Centre, Income Tax, Vs Nr. Idgah Gate, Asarwa, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380016 Ahmedabad [Pan No.:Aajca2338M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. D. Shah, Ar & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 03.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Explained Vide Notarized Affidavit Stated Originally The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee By Paying Appropriate Fees On 30.08.2024 By E-Filing. However, There Is Some Mistakes In Form No. 36 Which Was Required To Be Rectified, The Same Was Rectified & Filed On 21.02.2025 Thereby The Registry Has Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days. In View A.Y. 2017-18. 2 Of The Explanation Offered By The Assessee, The Delay Of 145 Days In Filing Of The Above Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 145 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee explained vide Notarized Affidavit stated originally the appeal was filed by the assessee by paying appropriate fees

KEVAL VISION CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby being condoned. 3. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. and passed an impugned order without appreciating the facts and details

GLOBAL EDUCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 19 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in dismissing the appeal ex-parte in gross violation of principles

MANISH N. AMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice Ground No. 2 Addition u/s 69A 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 47,16,000/- u/s 69A by treating the cash deposited during the demonetisation period as unexplained, without appreciating that the said cash represented duly recorded cash sales made

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

CHINTAN BHARATBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 678/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18. ITA No. 678/Ahd/2023 (Chintan Bharatbhai Shah vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 2 – 2. The appeal is barred by limitation for 145 days. In support of reason for filing the appeal late an affidavit affirmed by the appellant has been

SAMAY TILES LTD.,,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE DCIT,S.K.CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condonation of delay for substantial justice. 4. On merit the assessee has challenged the order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in not determining the profit @ 20% on unaccountable sales as already held by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is relevant to mention that

M/S. SAMAY TILES LTD.,,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, S.K.CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condonation of delay for substantial justice. 4. On merit the assessee has challenged the order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in not determining the profit @ 20% on unaccountable sales as already held by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is relevant to mention that

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

delay is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 4. The assessee, in the present case, is a company which is engaged in the business of providing IT-enabled services. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee-company on 28.03.2012 declaring total income

HYDERABAD YADGIRI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 11.10.2018 declaring total loss of Rs.37,84,22,186/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.01.2021 at the returned loss. Subsequently, the case

SHRI KRISHNA ENTERPRISE,NADIAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Shri Krishna Enterprise Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 (Partnership Firm) Nadiad. Gf, Snri Krishna Palace Dabhan Chokdi, Dabhan Nadiad, Gujarat. Pan : Acwfs 6389 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

delay of 344 days in filing the present appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The assessee was originally a partnership firm. Based on information from the Annual Information Report (AIR) and “Operation Clean Money,” the AO noticed substantial cash deposits in the bank 4 accounts

MUNISUVRAT DIGIMAC PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice. 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment the Assessing Officer observed that substantial cash deposits of Rs. 28,00,000/- was deposited by the assessee, during the demonetization period. On being asked, the assessee submitted that the source of cash deposits is from payments

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. OM LAND REALITY PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1572/Ahd/2019 With C.O No.24/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 The Dcit, M/S. Om Land Reality Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(1)(2), बनाम 302, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Ahmedabad. Abhiship Complex Nr. Keshav Baug Party Plot, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaaco9406D ( ""यथ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Dr Assessee By : Ms Amoli Gusani, Ar

145(3) of the Act and this difference was not taken into account by Ld.CIT(A). 10. The Ld.AR submitted that the difference between the estimated sales of Rs.13,00,000/- was an estimation on the part of the AO and therefore cash sales to that extent was correctly deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 11. We have heard both