VALJIBHAI ARJANBHAI VEGAD,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

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.1063/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Rajput Street Ward-1(9) V/S. Nawangam Ga Bhavnagar- 364 002 Tal : Vallabhipur Bhavnagar – 364 313 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aykpv 0860 F अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Sections 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), and 271F of the Act for non- compliance and non-filing of return. Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 3. Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal proceedings also proceeded ex-parte, as the assessee did not respond to multiple

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned as of the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been finally rejected on this preliminary ground of limitation. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137. 5. On the other hand the assessee relied upon the judgment passed

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned as of the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been finally rejected on this preliminary ground of limitation. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137. 5. On the other hand the assessee relied upon the judgment passed

PARVINBANU MAYUDIN KAZI,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5), ANAND

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi Ito, Ward-1 50/51, Sabnam Society Vs. Anand. Nr. New Water Tank Anand, Gujarat. Pan : Awppk 5536 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”], For A.Y. 2011–12, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, In Respect Of Cash Deposits In Her Savings Bank Account Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

delay deserves to be condoned. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The assessee had not filed the original return of income. Proceedings under section 147 were initiated after recording reasons and obtaining 3 approval under section 151. Notice under section 148 was issued on 27.03.2018. The assessee filed return on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,74,244

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244 during the financial year 2012–13 to various parties but had not deducted TDS on these payments. The assessee submitted that the assessee had received Form No. 15G/H from the recipients of interest to justify non- deduction of TDS. However, the Assessing Officer (TDS) observed that these forms were not submitted to the Income Tax Department within the statutory

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby being condoned. On Merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of building infrastructure facilities and earning income by way of collecting toll from vehicles running on roads constructed by the assessee. DCIT vs. Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year

ISCON HEIGHTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

section 57(iii) is not applicable as there is direct nexus of income and expenditure. Total Tax Effect Rs. 13,04,456” 3. Brief facts of the case are that Iscon Heights Owners Association i.e. IHOA is Association of Persons. The members are residents of Iscon Heights. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 02.08.2018 declaring total income

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