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

JYOTSANABEN CHINUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.150/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12 Jyotsanaben Chinubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, 42, Suryrath Society, Vs. Ward-7(2)(2), Kathwada Road, Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad.

221 Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, reported in [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC). Accordingly, the learned AR prayed for the admission of the appeal filed by the assessee. On the other hand, the learned DR has not controverted the prayer made by the learned AR for the assessee. 3. Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18. ITA nos.362-363/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 2 2. At the outset, we note that the order of the learned CIT-A was served upon the assessee dated 31 August 2020 but the appeals were presented

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18. ITA nos.362-363/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 2 2. At the outset, we note that the order of the learned CIT-A was served upon the assessee dated 31 August 2020 but the appeals were presented

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. A.Y.2017-18 2 2. At the outset, we note that the order of the learned CIT-A was served upon the assessee dated 31 August 2020 but the appeal was presented before the Tribunal against the order

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18. ITA nos.360-361/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 2 2. At the outset, we note that the order of the learned CIT-A was served upon the assessee dated 31 August 2020 but the appeals were presented

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18. ITA nos.360-361/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 2 2. At the outset, we note that the order of the learned CIT-A was served upon the assessee dated 31 August 2020 but the appeals were presented

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. A.Y. 2017-18 2 2. At the outset, we note that the order of the learned CIT-A was served upon the assessee dated 03rd September 2020 but the appeal was presented before the Tribunal against the order