M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

54,286/- Rs.17,62,097/- 3. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.55,43,026/- made on account of alleged inflated purchases. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

54,286/- Rs.17,62,097/- 3. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.55,43,026/- made on account of alleged inflated purchases. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

condone the delay of 262 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

delay in filing Form 10B was due to inadvertent oversight of CA, same was to be condoned by authority concerned under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 13. In the case of Brahmchari Wadi Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2025] 173 taxmann.com 54

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 324/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya. vs. DCIT 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 672 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The assessee

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that

DILIP MOHANDAS DEVANI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 54 to 50% of the investment in the new Dilip Mohandas Devani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 2– residential property, without considering the actual contributions made by the appellant and his spouse. The investment in the new property was made in the ratio 2:1, corresponding of the appellant’s and Anju Devani’s respective shares

BHARATKUMAR SOMABHAI PATEL,BANASHKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as in limine

54,34,300/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.1. As against the ex-parte order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) afforded six opportunities, the assessee failed to response to the hearing notices, therefore the assessee appeal was dismissed vide order

M/S. VEEDA CLINICAL RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assesee is dismissed

Bench: Us Stating That It Was On Account Of Default Of The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee That The Delay Occured Since He Forgot To Hand Over The Order To The Concerned Advocate For Filing The Appeal After The Assessee

54 days only that too not attributable to the assessee being solely on account of default of the Chartnered Accountant of the Assessee who has admitted to have forgotten to take necessary steps for filing the appeal after the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was handed over to him for doing the same, interest of justice demands that

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to the other side. 3. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee sold an immovable property bearing Plot No. 182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 at Sushrusha Cooperative Housing Society lying and situated at Swagat Park at Thaltej, Ahmedabad for a consideration

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under

NARAVATSINH JAGATSINH CHAUHAN,MEHSANA vs. I.T.O. WARD 1, PATAN

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 150 days in ITA No. 1254/Ahd/2024 and 54 days in ITA No. 1255/Ahd/2024 is condoned, and both appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.1253, 1254 and 1255/Ahd/2024 3 Facts of the case 3. In ITA No. 1253/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on information available under