VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

221/-” ITA No. 2259/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ex parte order passed under section 270A of the Act, which is in pure violation of the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal

KELAVANI MANDAL VALVOD TRUSTEE,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 357/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Kelvani Mandal Valvod Trustee, D.C.I.T., C/O Sarvajanik High School, Vs. Cpc , Valvod, Borsad, Banglore. Anand-388530. Pan: Aaatk2450L

delay about 423 days in ITA No. 357/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. It was explained by the learned AR that the appeal has been filed within the extended time as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC). Accordingly, the learned

VASNA EDUCATION TRUST, VASNA,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay about 423 days in ITA No. 364/Ahd/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. It was explained by the learned AR that the appeal has been filed within the extended time as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC). Accordingly, the learned

SHREE GOPAL ASHRAM,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay about 432 days in ITA Nos. 362-363/Ahd/2021 for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18. It was explained by the learned AR that the appeals have been filed within the extended time as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com

SHREE GOPAL ASHRAM,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay about 432 days in ITA Nos. 362-363/Ahd/2021 for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18. It was explained by the learned AR that the appeals have been filed within the extended time as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com

BHETASI KELVANI MANDAL,BHETASI vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay about 426 and 423 days in ITA Nos. 360-361/Ahd/2021 for AYs 2016- 17 & 2017-18 respectively. It was explained by the learned AR that the appeals have been filed within the extended time as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported

BHETASI KELVANI MANDAL,BHETASI vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay about 426 and 423 days in ITA Nos. 360-361/Ahd/2021 for AYs 2016- 17 & 2017-18 respectively. It was explained by the learned AR that the appeals have been filed within the extended time as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MA No. 665 of 221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone such delay in preferring appeal before us. Both appeals are, therefore admitted. ITA No. 318/Ahd/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17):- 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose