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

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(3

M/S.KOLET RESORTS CLUB PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

145(3) of the Act and accordingly the total receipts is estimated at rs.10,00,000/- and the difference of Rs.6,40,000/- is added to the total income treating the same as unaccounted income of the assessee. 4. It is noticed from the balance sheet that the assessee has been constantly showing sundry creditors of Rs.13

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

145(3), so he cannot make any separate addition for cash deposit and hence, the addition confirmed of Rs.59,70,000/- is without any justification and liable to be deleted. 2. This 2nd Appeal is not filed late as CIT(A) passed under S.250 dated 09-10-2023but the said PDF available on portal when download not 5 able

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Final Appeal.

3 Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO notice of hearing was received by the assessee from Ld. CIT(A) nor was the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) sought to be appealed against served upon the assessee, thereby causing the delay in filing appeal. The assessee came to know about the order of Ld. CIT(A) on going through

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

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.

delay of 145 days in filing of the above is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case is for the Assessment Year 2017- 18 the assessee filed its Return of Income claiming a loss of Rs. 88,83,761/-. The Return was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer noted the gross profit declared by the assessee

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

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

3 4. Application for condonation of delay At the outset, we note that the present appeal is delayed by a period of 10 days, for which the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay, along with Affidavit. The assessee submitted that the delay is owing to the fact that the assessee is of advance

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

THE ITO, WARD- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GWALIA SWEETS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the appeal of the assessee both are dismissed

section 145(3) of the Act is upheld. Now the issue whether the gross profit shown by the appellant is justified or not is to be decided. It is noted that the appellant has given certain explanations regarding fall in gross profit. In my opinion, one of the causes of fall in gross profit is the increase in turnover

M/S. GWALIA SWEETS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the appeal of the assessee both are dismissed

section 145(3) of the Act is upheld. Now the issue whether the gross profit shown by the appellant is justified or not is to be decided. It is noted that the appellant has given certain explanations regarding fall in gross profit. In my opinion, one of the causes of fall in gross profit is the increase in turnover

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

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

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

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

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

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

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

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

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

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

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

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

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

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani