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

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69 to 69C

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

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69 to 69C

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

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69 to 69C

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

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69 to 69C

SHRI GAURAV VINODBHAI MITRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

condone the delay, therefore, we first take preliminary issue only. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 14.10.2013 declaring total income at Rs.2,20,730/-. According to the AO, this case was selected through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) dated 2.9.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 2.3. The assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A) against the orders of AO. During the course of appellate following notices were issued and there

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section adequate non- 144B evidence or compliance substantiate and lack of the substantiatio transactions n of the during the transactions. proceedings. ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 2.3. The assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A) against the orders of AO. During the course of appellate following notices were issued and there

DHARMENDRA JINENDRA JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals), CIT(Appeals) noted that there was a delay of 1116 deys in filing of appeal. The assessee explained that the present appeal was delayed since the assessee relied on his accountant and tax consultant, who wrongly advised him that since an appeal was already filed

AYUSH PAVANKUMAR AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Section 69C for alleged commission, treating them as accommodation entries. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to non-appearance, caused by an inactive email ID on the portal.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

M/S. SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

69C of the Act on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.33,00,000/-. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Condonation of Delay

MINESH BIPINBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.23/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 & Asstt.Year 2016-17 Minesh Bipinbhai Patel The Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 10, Shantivan Society Vs. Race Course Sussen Tarsali Road Vadodara. Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Acqpp 7756 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 153 days in filing both the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 For A.Y. 2015–16, the assessee had originally filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 31.08.2015, declaring total income of Rs.1

JAYESHKUMAR HARJANI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

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

69C towards household expenditure\nallegedly incurred from unexplained sources.\n3.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before\nthe Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, i.e., with a delay of 17 days from the prescribed\ntime limit under Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without\nadjudicating the appeal on merits, dismissed the same

THE SIMALIYA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, the primary issue relates to the addition of Rs.26,17,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C

AMBAR RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay by verifying the genuine and sufficient cause faced by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. The dismissing of the appeal by not considering various factual and legal grounds raised by the appellant. Hence, the order passed is highly unjustifiable and unlawful. 6. The Lrd. Commissioner of Income Tax (E-Appeals

KAIDVANA MUVADA P DUDH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay of 393 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file the return of income for the relevant assessment year and the case was taken up for reassessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings

SHRI RAJKUMAR TIWARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(9), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Rajkumar Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, 252, Parshavnath Township, Vs Ward 3(3)(9), Nava Naroda, Ahmedabad-382350 Ahmedabad Pan : Ahopt 5391 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishith B. Jesur, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/07/2022

condone the said delay. 5. As regards the merit of the issue involved in this case relating to the addition of Rs.6,54,300/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C

VIKAS CHANDRAKANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay. According to the CIT(A), the appeal was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to examine the issues raised in the appeal on merits as well. In Ground Nos.1 and 2, the assessee challenged the validity of reopening of assessment and contended that the notice under section 148A

VIJAYSINGH NANUSINGH RATHORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Vijaysingh Manusingh Rathore The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 130, Kalhar Exotica Vs. Ahmedabad. Science City Road Thaltej, Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 059. Pan : Adkpr 5315 C (Applicant) (Responent)

delay of 292 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The AO, on the basis of AIR/CIB/ITS data, noted that the assessee had substantial transactions in F.Y. 2010–11 but had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2011–12. Reasons were recorded; approval obtained