AIRONA TILES LIMITED,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE HIMATNAGAR PRESENTLY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF. - Rs.10,100/- under Section 43B of the Act on account of Disallowance of professional tax. - Rs.9,640/- relating to (Prior period expenses) disallowed as they pertained to an earlier year. - Rs.65,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act being cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- in a day. - Rs.12,80,000/- under Section

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D was charged as applicable. 4. In appeal, the assessee filed the appeal online on 18.12.2018 before the CIT(Appeals). The first notice of hearing under section 250 was issued on 30.12.2020 fixing the hearing on 14.01.2021, followed by subsequent notices dated 26.12.2023 and 03.02.2024. However, despite several opportunities, the assessee did not appear, seek adjournment, or file any written

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D was charged as applicable. 4. In appeal, the assessee filed the appeal online on 18.12.2018 before the CIT(Appeals). The first notice of hearing under section 250 was issued on 30.12.2020 fixing the hearing on 14.01.2021, followed by subsequent notices dated 26.12.2023 and 03.02.2024. However, despite several opportunities, the assessee did not appear, seek adjournment, or file any written

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 115BBE of\nthe Act.\n\n8. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are\nunjustified.\n\n9. Initiation of penalty u/s 271F is unjustified.\n\n10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.\"\n\n5. The appeal is filed belatedly before us by a delay of 198\ndays. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that

AGNEE GAS AGENCY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1604/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\nAgnee Gas Agency\n13, Sukhram Chambers\nKhodiarnagar Char Rasta\nBapunagar\nAhmedabad - 380 024\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAHFA 7561 M\nThe Income Tax Officer\nबनाम /\nWard-5(3)(3)\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nHardik Vora office\nRevenue by:\nShri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR\nसुनवाई क

delay is condoned.\nFacts of the case:\n3. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of LPG gas\nagency. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 30.10.2017, declaring\na total income of Rs.4,01,560/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of\nthe Act. The books of account of the assessee were

PRAHLADBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL L/H. OF LATE DAHYABHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 352/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Prahladbhai Dahyabhai Patel, L/H Of Late Shri Dahyabhai The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwarbhai Patel, Ward-1, At Pirojpura, Post Sardarpura, Patan Taluko Vijapur, Mehsana Pan : Atjpp 7158 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 115BBE of the Act. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified. 11. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C and 234D are unjustified.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 59 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee

PARTH PRAGATI MANDAL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 882/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Parth Pragati Mandal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 19, Umiya Parivar Society, (Exemption) Vs. Valasana Road, Idar, Palanpur Sabarkantha – 383430, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp4353N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 13.09.2021 Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,30,409/- For Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby & Whereunder The Appeal Filed By The

Section 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. Against the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority, admittedly, which was barred by limitation for 313 days. Such appeal stood ITA No. 882/Ahd/2023 [Parth Pragati Mandal vs. ITO(E)] A.Y.– 2018-19 - 3 – dismissed on the premise that the appellant failed to show “sufficient cause” which could justify

GUJARAT SAFETY COUNCIL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal: “1. The order passed NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC / CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.19,86,737/- by invoking provision of section 11(3) of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC

GUJARAT SAFETY COUNCIL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal: “1. The order passed NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC / CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.19,86,737/- by invoking provision of section 11(3) of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC

GUJARAT SAFETY COUNCIL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal: “1. The order passed NFAC is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC / CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.19,86,737/- by invoking provision of section 11(3) of the Act. 3. Ld. NFAC

KAUSHIK D BHAGAT (PATEL),VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

delay Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel) vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 in filing the present appeal. However, no condonation application has been filed by the assessee even in the course of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 10.10.2014 declaring total income

DHARMENDRASINH NIRMALSINH GOHIL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

delay is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte and without deciding it on merits. Shri Dharmendrasinh Nirmalsinh Gohil vs. ITO Asst. Year–2013-14 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

condone the delay. The order was pronounced in the Open Court and hearing of the appeal is being proceeded with. 6. The facts of the present case are that regular assessment under section 143(3) was framed on the assessee for the impugned year on 24.12.2007 determining total income at Rs.16,20,928/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

condone the delay. The order was pronounced in the Open Court and hearing of the appeal is being proceeded with. 6. The facts of the present case are that regular assessment under section 143(3) was framed on the assessee for the impugned year on 24.12.2007 determining total income at Rs.16,20,928/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee

ENVISION SCIENTIFIC PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

234D of the Act is unjustified. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act is unjustified.” Assessment Year: 2018-19 Envision Scientific Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 3 of 5 4. Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed by the assessee was all along

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

PUNEET SINGH R. BHADOURIA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(9), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

234D is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 14.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,49,070/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 26.03.2019. Notice under Section 142(1) alongwith Questionnaire was issued on 14.06.2019. In response

EXPRESS CARGO CARRIERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

234D OF THE ACT. 1. The learned A.O. had erred in law and on facts in levying interest u/s. 234B/234C of the Act. The appellant denies his liability to pay interest u/s. 234B/234C of the Act considering the above facts. III. INITIATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(c) OF THE ACT. 1. The learned A.O. had erred

SOHIL ABDULKADARBHAI PIRWANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblesohil Abdulkadarbhai Pirwani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 31 Adamjinagar Nari Cross Ward-1(8), Road, Bhavnagar. Vartej Bhavnagar, Bhavnagar-364002. Gujarat. [Pan :Ahopp6706 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case