MINESH BIPINBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.23/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 & Asstt.Year 2016-17 Minesh Bipinbhai Patel The Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 10, Shantivan Society Vs. Race Course Sussen Tarsali Road Vadodara. Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Acqpp 7756 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 153 days in filing both the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 For A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee had originally filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.1

NALINKUMAR RATILAL PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

199, 11193 22/07/2008 12,41,450/- 6,20,725/- 6,20,725/- 212/2 213 11196 22/07/2008 14,81,105/- 7,40,553/- 7,40,552/- 214/3 11198 22/07/2008 5,18,405/- 2,59,203/- 2,59,202/- 212/1 11175 22/07/2008 7,03,588/- 3,51,794/- 3,51,794/- 216/2 11199 22/07/2008

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 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

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoning it, nor would it become a principal or a sharer in the illegality. The revenue merely looks at an accomplished fact, viz of profits having been earned and assesses the same. The assessee may be prosecuted for the crime and yet be charged on the profit (Mann v. Nash 16 TC 523). To hold otherwise would

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoning it, nor would it become a principal or a sharer in the illegality. The revenue merely looks at an accomplished fact, viz of profits having been earned and assesses the same. The assessee may be prosecuted for the crime and yet be charged on the profit (Mann v. Nash 16 TC 523). To hold otherwise would

JIVANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the non- grant of TDS credit claimed under Section194Q of Rs. 52,663/- was without proper verification of the details filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee being agent Arathiya registered with APMC engaged in the activity of facilitating sales

VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

199 1111/Mum/2011ITAT Mumbai c. Pallonji Shapoorji Charity Trust Vs ITO(Ex) (ITAT Mumbai) 3. As the trust has applied total income for charitable purpose us 11, and complied with all conditions, the exemption should be allowed. 4. Appellant prays to add, amend or drop grounds of appeal during the appeal proceedings. 3. Brief facts of the case are, that

DINESH RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

199 days. The assessee claimed that the delay was caused due to unfamiliarity with the new Income Tax Portal and the procedure for responding to notices through the e- proceedings tab. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee failed to explain "sufficient cause" for the extraordinary delay. The merits of the case

TEJAS C. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE 2(2) (PRESENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.45,46,760/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had purchased a land during the year vide sale deed dated

RAMANLAL JAWANMAL SHAH- HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CPC (AO- ITO WARD-1(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

condoned. The Ld. Departmental Representative has also not objected to such minor delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee earned interest income which was offered to tax on accrual basis in the respective years in which the interest income accrued. However, during the year under consideration

ITO, WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HEMANT HIRALAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

condoning the delay. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual drawing salary from partnership firm viz. Monarch Infra Venture and showing income from capital gain and income from other sources. For the Asst.Year 2014-15, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.3.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,21,880/-. The return

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

199 ITR 43 (SC) that no Legislature could have intended a double deduction in regard to the same income unless it is expressly provided in the statute and section 80HHC(4B) specifically prohibits such deduction. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

199 ITR 43 (SC) that no Legislature could have intended a double deduction in regard to the same income unless it is expressly provided in the statute and section 80HHC(4B) specifically prohibits such deduction. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

199 ITR 43 (SC) that no Legislature could have intended a double deduction in regard to the same income unless it is expressly provided in the statute and section 80HHC(4B) specifically prohibits such deduction. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

199 ITR 43 (SC) that no Legislature could have intended a double deduction in regard to the same income unless it is expressly provided in the statute and section 80HHC(4B) specifically prohibits such deduction. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

199 ITR 43 (SC) that no Legislature could have intended a double deduction in regard to the same income unless it is expressly provided in the statute and section 80HHC(4B) specifically prohibits such deduction. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order