RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

delay in filing the first appeal be condoned and appeal be remanded in terms of Rule 28 of Income Tax Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to Ld. CIT(A) NFAC for adjudication on merits.” 3. The assessee Company is engaged in manufacture and sale of Pesticides and Agrochemicals. A survey under Section 133A

ARCHANABEN RAJENDRASINGH DEVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated\nabove

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh\nDeval\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nTDS Ward-1,\nAhmedabad – 380 014\n42, Tirth Bhumi Co-op. Society\nNear Dhara Soap Factory\nNikol Gam Road,\nNikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AHZPD 2745 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by :\nShri Jaimin Sha

271C of the act, requires to be dropped.\n8. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any grounds of\nappeals before the appeal finally heard and decided.\nCondonation of Delay\n6. At the outset, the registry has noted that there is a delay of 438 days\n(494 days as computed by the assessee) in filing

RANCHHODBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.CIT,TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 271C of the Act. Thus, the penalty proceedings by the Department and confirm by the CIT(A) is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is being ITA No. 261/Ahd/2022 is allowed. ITA No. 263/Ahd/2022(A.Y. 2015-16):- 8. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under: “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC

SNEHALBEN KAMALBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.CIT,TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 271C of the Act. Thus, the penalty proceedings by the Department and confirm by the CIT(A) is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is being ITA No. 261/Ahd/2022 is allowed. ITA No. 263/Ahd/2022(A.Y. 2015-16):- 8. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as under: “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC

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

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

LATE ASHVINBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SMIT ASHVINBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

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

271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. I.T.A No. 1105 & 1106/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 2 Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (deceased) By Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE [NFAC]/CIT

LATE ASHVINBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SMIT ASHVINBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

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

271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. I.T.A No. 1105 & 1106/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2011-12 2 Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (deceased) By Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE [NFAC]/CIT

BANK OF BARODA,BHARUCH vs. THE JT. CIT (TDS), VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Bank Of Baroda The Jt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnfc Complex Branch, Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Gnfc Corporate Bulding, Baroda Narmadanagar – 392015, Bharuch "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb1534F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara-5 (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of Penalty Order Dated 28.04.2016 Passed By The Jt.Cit (Tds), Baroda, Under Section 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation For 252 Days. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant In Spite Of The Matter Being Listed For Several Occasions & Service Of Notice By Rpad. Upon

Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The appeal is barred by limitation for 252 days. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of the matter being listed for several occasions and service of notice by RPAD. Upon ITA No. 8/Ahd/2021 (Bank of Baroda