VINODBHAI UGARDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

delay is condoned, and the appeal of the assessee taken up for adjudication hereunder. 6. Though the assessee has raised as many as six grounds in the appeal, the sole issue pressed for adjudication arising in the present appeal which has come up before us in second round, relates to the 3 disallowance of claim of exemption of capital gains

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

Section 54F to the tune of Rs. 35,07,459/- has been confirmed. Dipal Sureshbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 2. As per records, the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed by the assessee beyond the time limit. The delay of 07 days is condoned

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

delay of 366 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The assessee, an individual, had filed his return of income manually for the relevant assessment year on 31.07.2012, declaring total income of Rs.3,50,777/- under the head "salary". On verification of the information available with the Department

RAJNIKANT RAICHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 45 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(1) That on facts and in law the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the re-opening the assessment

MOHAN RAMCHANDANI,BANGLORE vs. ACIT-INTL TAX-2 AHEMDABAD, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a non- resident individual who filed his return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.21,50,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of deduction/exemption from capital gains and investment

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)

delay of 672 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from Salary, House Property, Capital Gain and Other sources. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its belated Return of Income u/s. 139(1) on 26.03.2014 declaring total income

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act erred in holding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest

KOTHARI SANJAY MANILAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 698/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,92,89,740/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the deduction from income from other sources and capital gains deduction claimed

BHUPENDRABHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 655/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Bhupendrabhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Punjabhai Patel Income Tax Vs. Near Towers Dabhasa, Tal: Circle-1(3), Baroda Padra, Vadodara, Gujarat, 391440 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amgpp7772G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashesh Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 26/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 06.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

54F for Rs.75,80,923/- and the same be allowed to him.” 3. There is a delay of 125 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for delay. It has been submitted that the assessee was not a techno savvy person and the notices sent

JAYKISHAN SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Delay Condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 27.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year

VIDHI PRAGNESH MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.A No. 1917/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and filed her Return of Income for the Asst. Year