NARESH GOPALDAS BHOJWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. I.T.A No. 598/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 3 Shri Naresh Gopaldas Bhojwani vs. ITO 4. Coming to the merits of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of " 4,96,890/- on 08- 04-2013. Order under section

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

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

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

MANUBHAI SHAMRAV KHARAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

section 271B of the Act, is bad in law and against the facts of the case and therefore ld. A.R. requested to direct the learned AO to delete the said penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. 6. The Assessing Officer failed to adequately consider the assessee's detailed replies 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available

INFINITY BUILDCOM,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABNAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm namely Infinity Buildcom, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.1,17,717/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 294 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 10.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 13,70,850/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining total income

THE VANDELI DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

271B and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271B were initiated, besides levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and raised several grounds contending that the original reassessment itself was void, that the order under section 263 was invalid, that the notice under section 148 was time-barred, that