BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that

KRUNAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. ITA No.1285/Ahd/2025 [Krunal Sanghvi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – 2. The appeal is delayed for filing by 338 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay of 258 days in filing of appeal before him and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assesee without going into the merits of the case. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld a levy of penalty under Sectio271AAC(1) of the Act and under Section 270A

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay of 258 days in filing of appeal before him and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assesee without going into the merits of the case. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld a levy of penalty under Sectio271AAC(1) of the Act and under Section 270A

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay of 258 days in filing of appeal before him and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assesee without going into the merits of the case. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld a levy of penalty under Sectio271AAC(1) of the Act and under Section 270A

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay of 258 days in filing of appeal before him and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assesee without going into the merits of the case. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld a levy of penalty under Sectio271AAC(1) of the Act and under Section 270A

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay of 258 days in filing of appeal before him and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assesee without going into the merits of the case. Consequently, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld a levy of penalty under Sectio271AAC(1) of the Act and under Section 270A

SOLEONE TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

sections 272A(1)(d) and 270A of the Act, were also initiated. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, on the ground of the inordinate delay of 687 days in filing the appeal. Although an Affidavit for condonation

BHAGYALAXMI STEEL ROLLING MILL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 253 of the Income tax Act, 1961. This application is being filed, praying for condonation of delay of 293 days in filing of appeal against the order of ld. C.I.T.(Appeals), NFAC dated 22.02.2024 for Asst. Year 2018- 19. Said order was received on the same date by the applicant- assessee through email. The appeal ought to have been

MAHAMADBHAI RAHEMANBHAI MAKWANA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay condoned, the next issue is the adjudication of the quantum appeal on merits. The assessee has raised pertinent issues concerning the valuation of the properties, particularly the tenanted nature and legal disputes affecting the market value. These factors were not adequately considered by the Departmental Valuer or the AO in making the addition under Section

MAHAMADBHAI RAHEMANBHAI MAKWANA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay condoned, the next issue is the adjudication of the quantum appeal on merits. The assessee has raised pertinent issues concerning the valuation of the properties, particularly the tenanted nature and legal disputes affecting the market value. These factors were not adequately considered by the Departmental Valuer or the AO in making the addition under Section

BHAVNATH EDUCATION TRUST,BAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1559/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Bhavnath Education Trust Income Tax Officer Bhanagar Highway, Dist. (Exemption) Vs. Bhavnagar, Ranghola- Ward, Bhavnagar 364230 / Aayakar Bhawan, Income Sanghavi & Company, Tax Office, Bhavanagar Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2003J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M K Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2026 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

condoned for which act of kindness the appellant will forever pray.” ITA No.1559/Ahd/2025 [Bhavnath Education Trust vs. ITO(E)] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – 3. To substantiate the above explanation for the delay in filing of the present appeal being on account of the order being served on an incorrect email ID, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew my attention

VISHAL INFRAGLOBAL PVT. LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2080/Ahd/2024 & 2081/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Infraglobal Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.42, 2Nd Floor Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Apple Avenue Gandhinagar B/H. Dharti Flats Gayatri Temple, Highway Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecv 2187 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01 /04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condone the delay in both appeals. Since the penalty under section 270A of the Act is consequential in nature, dependent

VISHAL INFRAGLOBAL PVT. LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.2080/Ahd/2024 & 2081/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Infraglobal Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.42, 2Nd Floor Gandhinagar Circle V/S. Apple Avenue Gandhinagar B/H. Dharti Flats Gayatri Temple, Highway Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecv 2187 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01 /04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condone the delay in both appeals. Since the penalty under section 270A of the Act is consequential in nature, dependent

LAHAR JOSHI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

delay condonation request was done. Thus, appeal was not fought on merits at CIT(A). Thus, appeal was not fought on merits at CIT(A). This is the only ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 26.12.2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,96,320/- for the A.Y. 2018-19. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny

TREXGEN PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI JURI. AO- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal relating to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Short controversy in this appeal is, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 2.2.2022 as against the penalty order dated 1.1.2022 levied under section 270A

GOMTIDAS GOVINDRAM SADHU,RAMJI MANDIR SHERTHA, GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 GANDHINAGAR, UDYOG BHAWAN, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with a direction as above

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 344/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

delay of 362 days is hereby condoned. Gomtidas Govindram Sadhu vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 3 Facts of the Case 5. The assessee is an individual engaged in performing religious duties as a priest of Ramji Mandir, Shertha. The assessee did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on information received, the AO noticed that

NIKANTH (NAROL) CO. OP. SHOPS & OFF SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the above directions

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1814/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nikanth (Narol) Co-Op. Shops & The Income Tax Officer बनाम Off Society Limited Ward-1(1)(1) / 299 & 230/3 Paiki Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Opp. Gokul Petrol Pump Narol Char Rasta Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaban 2595 B (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Preyashi Tated, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

270A of the Act for underreporting of income and fees under Section 234F of the Act for non-filing of return were initiated. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was delayed by 18 days. The assessee submitted that the delay occurred because the chairman