MINOR HARESH KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD- 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 7. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground number 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting interest till the date of refund is issued. 8. The AO in the present case

RAMESH JASUBHAI PATEL,GHATLODIA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, AMBAWADI

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 436 To 438/Ahd/2024 िनधा%रण वष%/Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 बनाम Ramesh Jasubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/7, Satkar Bungalow, Ward 4(2)(3), Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Gujarat-380061 Pan : Akspp 7877 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा%(रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar *+थ- की ओर से / Revenue By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.08.2024

260/- 2,18,900/- Income (Rs.) Section of 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 Order ITA No. 436 to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 2 Date of Order 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 Assessed 1,33,70,560/- 1,75,74,500/- 76,62,000/- Income (Rs.) Nature of - Unexplained

RAMESH JASUBHAI PATEL,GHATLODIA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, AMBAWADI

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 436 To 438/Ahd/2024 िनधा%रण वष%/Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 बनाम Ramesh Jasubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/7, Satkar Bungalow, Ward 4(2)(3), Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Gujarat-380061 Pan : Akspp 7877 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा%(रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar *+थ- की ओर से / Revenue By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.08.2024

260/- 2,18,900/- Income (Rs.) Section of 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 Order ITA No. 436 to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 2 Date of Order 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 Assessed 1,33,70,560/- 1,75,74,500/- 76,62,000/- Income (Rs.) Nature of - Unexplained

RAMESH JASUBHAI PATEL,GHATLODIA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN AMBAWADI

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 436 To 438/Ahd/2024 िनधा%रण वष%/Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 बनाम Ramesh Jasubhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/7, Satkar Bungalow, Ward 4(2)(3), Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Gujarat-380061 Pan : Akspp 7877 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा%(रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar *+थ- की ओर से / Revenue By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.08.2024

260/- 2,18,900/- Income (Rs.) Section of 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 144 r.w.s. 147 Order ITA No. 436 to 438/Ahd/2024 Ramesh Jasubhai Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16 2 Date of Order 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 Assessed 1,33,70,560/- 1,75,74,500/- 76,62,000/- Income (Rs.) Nature of - Unexplained

JAYESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.71/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ Kishan Cowk Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Piplav, Anand – 388 460 Petlad – 388 450 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bixpp 2069 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/09/2022 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Addition Amounting To Rs.23.30,500/- Made As Unexplained Investments In Case Of The Appellant For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add/Alter Or Amend Any Of The Ground Of Appeal.” Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

condone the delay of 771 days in filing of the present appeal. 5. The appeal is therefore admitted for adjudication on merits. On Merits 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, an individual engaged in agricultural activity, did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 within

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay by verifying the genuine and sufficient cause faced by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. The dismissing of the appeal by not considering various factual and legal grounds raised by the appellant. Hence, the order passed is highly unjustifiable and unlawful. 6. The Lrd. Commissioner of Income Tax (E-Appeals

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

delay is accordingly condoned. I.T.A No. 2022/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vijay D. Patel vs. CIT 3. Proceeding to adjudicate the issue before us ,it transpires from the order of the ld. PCIT, that the revisionary power was exercised on the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee in reassessment proceedings

MARUTI DYECHEM INDUSTRIES,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

260/- on account of valuation of stock. 3. Against the said order assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. There is delay of eight days and ld. AR has filed an affidavit along with an application with the reasons

VIRBALA KIRITKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5 PRESENT JURISDICTION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice. 3. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 250 of the Act by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to the provisions of law and on facts

ACTIVE ALLUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 28.07.2016, declaring a loss of Rs. 49,34,147/-. The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum sections, declared

MOHD TAHIR MOHD BASIR SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-6(1),, AHMEDABADF

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2010-11 Mohd Tahir Mohd Basir Shaikh Jcit, Range-6(1) 15, Gulista Vs Ahmedabad. Apartment, Lal Mill Char Rasta Rakhial Ahmedabad 380 021. Pan : Apyps 3093 J

delay condonation was filed by the assessee despite direction to do so. Even direction of the Registry to file legible copy of penalty order passed under section 271E of the Act, under challenge was not filed by the assessee. Appeal thereafter listed on several occasions starting from 7.2.2020 to 20.9.2022 and only two occasions i.e. 11.8.2021 and 26.10.2021 assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

260 Sun 06-07-2009 Pharmaceutical 21,000 1,85,000 1089.46 2,28,78,660 Sun 11-08-2009 Pharmaceutical 25,000 2,10,000 1089.46 2,72,36,500 Sun 08-09-2009 Pharmaceutical 25,000 2,35,000 1089.46 2,72,36,500 Sun 27-10-2009 Pharmaceutical

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

260 Sun 06-07-2009 Pharmaceutical 21,000 1,85,000 1089.46 2,28,78,660 Sun 11-08-2009 Pharmaceutical 25,000 2,10,000 1089.46 2,72,36,500 Sun 08-09-2009 Pharmaceutical 25,000 2,35,000 1089.46 2,72,36,500 Sun 27-10-2009 Pharmaceutical

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

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore