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

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 of delay stating as under: “1

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

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

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)

1. The titled Appeal has been filed under 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

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 1600 days. Importantly, PAN, confirmation, address of all such parties from whom cash was accepted and repaid were filed by the legal heir and therefore he was well aware of the business affairs of the deceased assessee. Considering the background of criminal proceedings against assessee, such acceptance and repayment of loan in cash are within

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 1600 days. Importantly, PAN, confirmation, address of all such parties from whom cash was accepted and repaid were filed by the legal heir and therefore he was well aware of the business affairs of the deceased assessee. Considering the background of criminal proceedings against assessee, such acceptance and repayment of loan in cash are within

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 1600 days. Importantly, PAN, confirmation, address of all such parties from whom cash was accepted and repaid were filed by the legal heir and therefore he was well aware of the business affairs of the deceased assessee. Considering the background of criminal proceedings against assessee, such acceptance and repayment of loan in cash are within

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 1600 days. Importantly, PAN, confirmation, address of all such parties from whom cash was accepted and repaid were filed by the legal heir and therefore he was well aware of the business affairs of the deceased assessee. Considering the background of criminal proceedings against assessee, such acceptance and repayment of loan in cash are within

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 1600 days. Importantly, PAN, confirmation, address of all such parties from whom cash was accepted and repaid were filed by the legal heir and therefore he was well aware of the business affairs of the deceased assessee. Considering the background of criminal proceedings against assessee, such acceptance and repayment of loan in cash are within

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay of 1600 days. Importantly, PAN, confirmation, address of all such parties from whom cash was accepted and repaid were filed by the legal heir and therefore he was well aware of the business affairs of the deceased assessee. Considering the background of criminal proceedings against assessee, such acceptance and repayment of loan in cash are within

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

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

270A of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 1,90,773/-” ITA No. 2260/Ahd/2025

VANKAR DAYABHAI ,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

270A of the Act, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed. 3. Your appellant further reserves his rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal. Total tax effect (penalty) 1,90,773/-” ITA No. 2260/Ahd/2025