NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”], dated 23.12.2011. 2. The grounds of appealraised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.9,460/- u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D ignoring the fact that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

150/- was denied in the intimation made under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC on account of the fact stated above of delay in filing Form 10CCF. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals the assessee to have stated that it is a Private Limited Company registered as an IFSC Company in Gift City, Gandhinagar

SHREE MARUTI SEVA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing application under section 80G(5) of the Act is to be condoned where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief and directed the Commissioner (Exemptions) to reconsider the application on merits. Similarly, in Peoples Progress Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2025] 177 taxmann.com 150

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

ANJU BHARAT CHELANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing the appeal late by 17 days, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo. The CIT(A) had not given any opportunity to explain delay even in the notice dtd. 06.11.2025 and the issuance of penalty notice dtd. Anju Bharat Chelani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 2– 02.05.2024 was available

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming