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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling 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.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

delay before the learned CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, we note that the Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee’s income under the head “Long-Term Capital Gains” by reducing the cost of acquisition of land as on 01.04.1981 from Rs. 1

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

delay before the learned CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, we note that the Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee’s income under the head “Long-Term Capital Gains” by reducing the cost of acquisition of land as on 01.04.1981 from Rs. 1

ANILKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD MODANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)), VADODARA

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.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, 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: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

condone the delay in filing and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. On the grounds of appeal 8. We observe that the CIT(A) failed to afford a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as required under Section 250 of the Act. In matters where substantial additions are made, natural justice demands that the assessee be given

SHRI DILIP KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

condone the delay 3. I declare and affirm on oath that the delay in filing appeal is wholly unintentional and not with a view to obtain any benefit on account of such delay. I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the Appeal. VERIFICATION I, Manish Kumarpal Shah, the above named deponent

SHRI PINAKIN KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

condone the delay 3. I declare and affirm on oath that the delay in filing appeal is wholly unintentional and not with a view to obtain any benefit on account of such delay. I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the Appeal. VERIFICATION I, Manish Kumarpal Shah, the above named deponent

SHRI DILIP KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

condone the delay 3. I declare and affirm on oath that the delay in filing appeal is wholly unintentional and not with a view to obtain any benefit on account of such delay. I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the Appeal. VERIFICATION I, Manish Kumarpal Shah, the above named deponent

SHRI MANISH KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

condone the delay 3. I declare and affirm on oath that the delay in filing appeal is wholly unintentional and not with a view to obtain any benefit on account of such delay. I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the Appeal. VERIFICATION I, Manish Kumarpal Shah, the above named deponent

SHRI PINAKIN KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

condone the delay 3. I declare and affirm on oath that the delay in filing appeal is wholly unintentional and not with a view to obtain any benefit on account of such delay. I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the Appeal. VERIFICATION I, Manish Kumarpal Shah, the above named deponent

SMT. VANITA VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2010-11 Smt. Vanita Vaswani, The Pcit (Central), 2, Samprat Co-Op. Housing Vs Ahmedabad Society Limited, Opp. Rivera, 11, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad - 380015 Pan : Aakpv 7868 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar & Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Dated 28.03.2021, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Assessee Has Taken 7 Grounds Of Appeal Which Read As Under:- “1. The Ld. Pcit (Central), Ahmedabad ("The Pcit") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") & Has Further Erred In Directing The Ld. Ao To Pass Fresh Assessment Order Incorporating The Market Value Of The Property As Per Section 50C Of The Act. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The Case Of The Appellant In Failing To Take Smt. Vanita Vaswani Vs. Pr. Cit Ay : 2010-2011 2

50C of the Act and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. While giving effect to this order, the Assessing Officer should also consider the last income determined.” 6. With the assistance of the learned Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of Section 263 of the Act would reveal that it contemplates that

THE ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA vs. MS. GRISHMABEN M. SOLANKI,, PANCHMAHAL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Ms. Grishmaben M. Solanki, Income-Tax, Vs Rajmahal Road, Devgarh Baria, Panchmahal Circle, Panchmahal, Gujarat-389380 Godhra Pan : Cyops 3860 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.09.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs.56,56,420/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

condonation of delay has been passed by CIT(A). 2. On the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 56,56,420/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, overlooking the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.1

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

50C of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act, though the directions were specifically in relation to section 50(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO without bringing any fresh material on record of affording an opportunity of being heard, exceeded the scope of directions and violated