JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

148 of the Act. But by no stretch can the provision be interpreted to condone delays by levy of interest more particularly in the facts of the present case where there is an unreasonable delay in the filing of return , leaving hardly any scope for the AO to scrutinize the return filed by the assessee. The law cannot be interpreted

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

148 of the Act. But by no stretch can the provision be interpreted to condone delays by levy of interest more particularly in the facts of the present case where there is an unreasonable delay in the filing of return , leaving hardly any scope for the AO to scrutinize the return filed by the assessee. The law cannot be interpreted

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

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

2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee has deposed that the delay occurred due to ignorance of legal proceedings and misinterpretation of law, coupled with a communication gap arising from incorrect email address recorded with

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

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

2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee has deposed that the delay occurred due to ignorance of legal proceedings and misinterpretation of law, coupled with a communication gap arising from incorrect email address recorded with

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

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

2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee has deposed that the delay occurred due to ignorance of legal proceedings and misinterpretation of law, coupled with a communication gap arising from incorrect email address recorded with

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

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

2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee has deposed that the delay occurred due to ignorance of legal proceedings and misinterpretation of law, coupled with a communication gap arising from incorrect email address recorded with

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

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

2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee has deposed that the delay occurred due to ignorance of legal proceedings and misinterpretation of law, coupled with a communication gap arising from incorrect email address recorded with

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

148, 142(1) of the Act, ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 and other related sections of the Act. The DR argued that the assessee’s lack of co-operation during the proceedings demonstrated a disregard for the due process of law, and therefore, the delay should not be condoned

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

148, 142(1) of the Act, ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 and other related sections of the Act. The DR argued that the assessee’s lack of co-operation during the proceedings demonstrated a disregard for the due process of law, and therefore, the delay should not be condoned

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

condone the delay. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. The assessee in the first ground of CO has challenged the proceedings under section 147 of the Act which was based on the information received from the Invetigation wing. 5. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

condone the delay. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. The assessee in the first ground of CO has challenged the proceedings under section 147 of the Act which was based on the information received from the Invetigation wing. 5. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

condone the delay. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. The assessee in the first ground of CO has challenged the proceedings under section 147 of the Act which was based on the information received from the Invetigation wing. 5. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he has been instructed not to press

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)(b), unless there is a demonstrable act of under-reporting in\nsubstance. The statute does not intend to penalise delayed but\ntruthful compliance, particularly where no tax loss arises and the\nincome is fully traceable in departmental systems.\n16\nIn view of the above discussion and respectfully applying the\nratio laid down in the judicial precedents referred to hereinabove

NA ROTO MACHINE & MOULDS INDIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 270A of the Act was received and thereafter the present appeal was filed. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing 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. 2017-18 on 03.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GANDHINAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY (GUDA),, GANDHINAGAR,

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1560 & 1561/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.05 & 06/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy.Cit (Exemptions) Gandhinagar Urban Development Cir.1 Vs Authority, 4Th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Ahmedabad. Sector 11, Gandhinagar 382 011. Pan : Aaalg 0922 K

condonation of delay and proceed to decide the COs on merit along the appeal of the Revenue. 8. First we take the appeal of the Revenue for Asstt.Year 2009-10. 9. Though the Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal, the grievances pleaded in this four grounds revolve around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in quashing

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GANDHINAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY (GUDA),, GANDHINAGAR,

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1560 & 1561/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.05 & 06/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy.Cit (Exemptions) Gandhinagar Urban Development Cir.1 Vs Authority, 4Th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Ahmedabad. Sector 11, Gandhinagar 382 011. Pan : Aaalg 0922 K

condonation of delay and proceed to decide the COs on merit along the appeal of the Revenue. 8. First we take the appeal of the Revenue for Asstt.Year 2009-10. 9. Though the Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal, the grievances pleaded in this four grounds revolve around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in quashing

KUSHAL VINODKUMAR BHATT LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VINODKUMAR RAMANLAL BHATT,ANAND vs. THE ACIT (OSD), WARD-5, ANAND

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

delay which was condoned. The legal heir contented before CIT[A] that the reassessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s.147 for A.Y. 2011-12 is void ab initio. Since the notice issued under Section 148, which confers jurisdiction for reassessment, was issued in the name of a deceased person, consequently the entire proceedings legally unsustainable. Despite being informed

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:

148/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 10.09.2012. The Assessing Officer subsequently selected the case for scrutiny and issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires were issued to the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

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:

148/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 10.09.2012. The Assessing Officer subsequently selected the case for scrutiny and issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaires were issued to the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer