RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the above appeals and take up the appeals on merits of the case. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri Aseem L. Thakkar submitted that the only additions made in all these assessments are unexplained cash credits

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the above appeals and take up the appeals on merits of the case. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri Aseem L. Thakkar submitted that the only additions made in all these assessments are unexplained cash credits

SHRI TEJAS ARVINDBHAI RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) WARD-7(1), NOW WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 336/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Tejas Arvindbhai Raval, Ito(Osd), बनाम/ 803, Anand Hari Tower, Ward – 7(1), Vs. Opp. Chanakya Tower Ahmedabad. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afupr 7933 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The first issue raised by the assessee is that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,27,192/- out of the total addition made by the AO for Rs. 8,35,672/-. Shri Tejas Arvindbhai Raval

M/S.KOLET RESORTS CLUB PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

condonation of delay for filing of appeal by the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant company has made a mistake in filing the appeal with the Income Tax Officer instead of Commissioner of Income Tax due to which there has been a delay in the filing of appeal with

SHRI KHAMBHAT TALUKA SARVAJANIK KELAVANI MANDAL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay. He submitted that when the accountant had been negligent before the AO and also before the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in ex-parte orders, the assessee should have taken precaution to ensure that the present appeal was filed within time. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee cannot escape by merely passing on the blame

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 7. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. C IT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained cash credit to be deleted fully. 2. The Appellant submit that the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts to confirmed the addition made by the Ld A.O. amounting to Rs. 2,08,67,654/- on account of estimation of Net Profit @ 8% on Gross Sales which is unreasonable without appreciating the facts that

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained cash credit to be deleted fully. 2. The Appellant submit that the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts to confirmed the addition made by the Ld A.O. amounting to Rs. 2,08,67,654/- on account of estimation of Net Profit @ 8% on Gross Sales which is unreasonable without appreciating the facts that

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay is condoned. 7. The appellant engaged in the business of agency of Idea Cellular Services and Trading of scrape, filed its return of income on 27.10.2008 declaring total income at Rs.2,01,565/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30.04.2009. During the assessment proceeding, it appears from the records that the assessee has deposited cash

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay is condoned. 7. The appellant engaged in the business of agency of Idea Cellular Services and Trading of scrape, filed its return of income on 27.10.2008 declaring total income at Rs.2,01,565/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30.04.2009. During the assessment proceeding, it appears from the records that the assessee has deposited cash

M/S. JAYLAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2226/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 M/S Jaylaxmi Land Developers, Income Tax Officer, B-07 Jaylaxmi Towers, Ward 1, Vs. Anand. Ganesh Chokdi, Post. Anand-388 001. Pan: Aaffj1432Q

condone the delay and proceed to hear the grounds of appeal of the assessee on merit. 5. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press ground No. 1 of the appeal. Therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. Asstt. Year

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with ITAT, reads

THE ANKLAV MERCANTILE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ANAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning delay in fulfilling appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating addition made U/s 68 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.8,17,68,248/- as unexplained cash credit

PINKAL SURESHKUMAR KOTHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

delay in filing of the present appeal, which I, therefore, condone in the interest of justice. 5. Taking up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication, at the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of investment made

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of more than two years. The delay was attributed to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of understanding of the proceedings (as the notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee

ARUNBHAI NIMBALKAR GAJARE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Arunbhai Nimbalkar Gajare The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 2, Krishna Appt Ward-5(3)(4) V/S. Bhudarpura Road Ahmedabad Ambawadi Ahmedabasd – 380 006 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpg 8637 L अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

cash deposits u/s.69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 without any basis. 6. The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition addition of Rs.3,73,550/- made by Assessing Officer treating the credit entries in bank account No.306656602 held by the appellant with Central Bank of India, Bhuderpura Branch, Paldi, Ahmedabad during the year under appeal as alleged