SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 37. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 38. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that penalty order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is barred by limitation is being dismissed since assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 37. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 38. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that penalty order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is barred by limitation is being dismissed since assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 37. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 38. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that penalty order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is barred by limitation is being dismissed since assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 37. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 38. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that penalty order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is barred by limitation is being dismissed since assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 37. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 38. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that penalty order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is barred by limitation is being dismissed since assessee

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted in the instant set of facts. 12. In the result, all grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Cross objections filed by the Department 13. In the cross objections filed by the Department, the Revenue has challenged the validity/veracity of power of authority notarised in the I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted in the instant set of facts. 12. In the result, all grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Cross objections filed by the Department 13. In the cross objections filed by the Department, the Revenue has challenged the validity/veracity of power of authority notarised in the I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted in the instant set of facts. 12. In the result, all grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Cross objections filed by the Department 13. In the cross objections filed by the Department, the Revenue has challenged the validity/veracity of power of authority notarised in the I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted in the instant set of facts. 12. In the result, all grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Cross objections filed by the Department 13. In the cross objections filed by the Department, the Revenue has challenged the validity/veracity of power of authority notarised in the I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019

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

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

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

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

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:

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay

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:

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay

M/S. ROSY ROYAL MINERALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.37,07,727/- has been confirmed by Hon'ble CIT(A). (e) Immediately thereafter, we have approached another leading firm of Chartered Accountant M/s. Talati & Talati LLP Chartered Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 4 of 10 Accountants and under their advice and guidance necessary appeals with condonation application

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

condonation of the said delay on the following grounds:- [I-Serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2010-11 Assessment Order was passed under section 144 of the Act on 21.01.2013 determining total income at Rs.1,59,41,190/-. The Assessing Officer invoked penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty vide order dated

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development