CAT COSMETICS AND HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and set aside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 5. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the delay and requested to confirm the order passed by the Lower Authorities especially when the assessment order itself is an exparte order. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused

ASSOCIATION OF INDIA PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC , BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Section 11 & 12 of the Act. The Ld. NFAC held that the assessee having filed Form 10B belatedly the disallowance of Rs. 48,00,000/- (137628 + 4662372) in the intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) is in order. 3.1. The Ld. CIT(A) held that as per Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, Form 10B shall be submitted

KARNAVATI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalkarnavati Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Vs. 1St Floor, Nirav Complex, Nr. Ward 2(1)(2), Navrang High School, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013 [Pan :Aacck 7148 J] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By : Appellant By : Respondent By: Respondent By Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025

Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised

SHREE NITYANANDSWAMI EDUCATION TRUST,DHARMAJ TARAPUR ROAD NAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT (EXEMPTION) AHMEDBAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,95,066/-. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a rectification application under Section Shree Nityanandswami Education Trust vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2016-17 - 2– 154 of the Act on 22.02.2022 with the Assessing Officer which was rejected vide AO’s communication dated 16.06.2022. 3. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer rejecting the application under Section

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being contrary

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being contrary

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being contrary

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

48,000/-(forming part of Rs 1,08,03,168/-) towards alleged bogus purchases from Jabir Hussain U., despite the fact that the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 20.03.2017, had already allowed this issue The Appellant has not raised this matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad nor has the department challenged the same. The impugned addition, being contrary

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay n filing appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 21. We observe that penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act has been levied on the same two additions made in the hands of Shri Rohit ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

condone the delay and proceed to decided both the appeals on merit. 9. First we take IT(SS)A.No.45/Ahd/2020 (Quantum appeal): 10. In this appeal, the assessee has taken one additional ground of appeal, whereby he has pleaded as under: “The action of the ld.AO in framing the assessment u/s.153A r.w. section

MAHENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mahendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 51, Shivranjini Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Satellite, Azad Society So Ahmedabad. Pan : Awspp 5117 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul B. Dhrangadhariya, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

delay of 92 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for AY 2012–13 on 31.03.2014, declaring income of Rs.3,22,991/‑. Information was received by the Assessing Officer (AO) from ITO Ward 4(2)(2), Ahmedabad