TURAKHIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.677/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16)

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of decorative veneers and ply- woods and other related products and also dealing in finance & trading in shares and securities since last many years. The assessee filed its return of income on 09/09/2015

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

section 154. The mistake being apparent from the record ought to have been rectified. 3.0 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 20,30,909/-. The appellant submits that addition of Rs. 20,30,909/- is an error apparent from the records and ought to have been deleted. The addition was erroneous

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. CIT,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

section 154. The mistake being apparent from the record ought to have been rectified. 3.0 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 20,30,909/-. The appellant submits that addition of Rs. 20,30,909/- is an error apparent from the records and ought to have been deleted. The addition was erroneous

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

delay is accordingly condoned. I.T.A No. 2022/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vijay D. Patel vs. CIT 3. Proceeding to adjudicate the issue before us ,it transpires from the order of the ld. PCIT, that the revisionary power was exercised on the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee in reassessment proceedings

KAUSHAL PRAVINKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

delay of 56 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted. Facts in Brief 3. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 25.01.2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,27,800/-, showing business income from trading in chemicals. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason "large cash deposits during demonetisation period

MARUTI DYECHEM INDUSTRIES,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

condone the delay. In support of its contention appellant filed Profit & Accounts for Asst. Year 2011-12 and submitted a chart wherein details have been given with regard to exclusive and inclusive method being adopted by the assessee. Assessee has also filed an order of co-ordinate bench in ITA Maruti Dyechem Industries vs. JCIT Asst.Year –2011-12 No.278/ahd/2011

DEEPAKKUMAR RADHESHYAM SHRIVASTAV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambledeepakkumar Radheshyam Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shrivastav, Ward-3(2)(1), 1, Radhegranth, Near Jeeviba Ahmedabad. Complex, Cadila Crossing Road, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad-380050. [Pan :Bbdps 7889 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pritesh Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. Dr

delay is requested to be condoned. (2) The learned CIT(A), MFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of cash deposited to Bank amounting to Rs.20,67,708/- considering the same as unexplained, such addition is requested to be deleted. (3) The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN VEJALPUR vs. VIPUL JAGDISHBHAI PATEL(HUF), NARANPURA AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Cross Objection No. 59/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Huf) Vs. A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 & Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel Income Tax Officer (Huf) Ward-2(1)(2), A-302, Aryan-2, Nr. Kabir Ahmedabad School, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghv7848P (Appellant / Cross Objector) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit P Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Siliguri (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relate To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. Ita No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/W. Co No. 59/Ahd/2025 [Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel (Huf)] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed For Filing By 16 Days. The Ao Has Explained The Cause Of Delay As Being Preoccupied In Pressing Matters Including Time Barring Matters, High Court Matters & Others. Considering The Smallness Of The Delay, We Consider It Fit To Condone The Delay. Order Was Pronounced In The Open Court.

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relate to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. ITA No. 1324/Ahd/2025 A/w. CO No. 59/Ahd/2025 [Vipul Jagdishbhai Patel (HUF)] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed for filing by 16 days. The AO has explained the cause of delay as being

SACHIN MAHASUKHLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return or income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 27.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.21,68,890/-. In the course of assessment, the claim for deduction of interest of Rs.38,15,160/- was disallowed as the nexus

RUPA SACHIN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return or income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 27.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.21,68,890/-. In the course of assessment, the claim for deduction of interest of Rs.38,15,160/- was disallowed as the nexus

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani