DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section

DINESH RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1506/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dinesh Ramanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 23, Shyam Sharan Part-2 Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Aarohi Club Road Ahmedabad Bopal-Ghuma Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Btbpp 3659 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

272A (1)(d) of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in levying penalty without even dealing with the reasonable cause explained by the appellant for not complying with the notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act, thus resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The appellant craves

CHUDAJI THAKOR,VASAJADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 2049/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Chudaji Thakor vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 30 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained that

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(1)(d) 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) 40000/-” 3. These are identical cases

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

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

D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the Assessment

MAHEMUDKHAN AJAMUDDIN RANA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) were also initiated for unexplained income and non-compliance to statutory notices, respectively. 4. In appeal, he Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal primarily on the ground of non-prosecution and refusal to condone the delay

VALJIBHAI ARJANBHAI VEGAD,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(9), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1063/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Rajput Street Ward-1(9) V/S. Nawangam Ga Bhavnagar- 364 002 Tal : Vallabhipur Bhavnagar – 364 313 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aykpv 0860 F अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Sections 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), and 271F of the Act for non- compliance and non-filing of return. Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 3. Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the appeal proceedings also proceeded ex-parte, as the assessee did not respond to multiple

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated

ALISHA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

272A(1)(d) of Rs.30,000/- each for the Asst. Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Aggrieved against the above orders, the assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with condonation delay for the quantum appeals which was condoned by Ld. CIT(A). As the assessee failed to respond to the hearing notices dated