AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

MAYUR NIRMALKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

163 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the trading of petroleum products under the proprietorship concern "Jay Ambe Enterprise". The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 on 18.07.2014, declaring a total income

DHARMENDRA RIKHAVCHAND SHAH, HUF,HIMATNAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT HURIS.THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without bringing any incriminating material or evidence on record. 6. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground at or before the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

163/- by ld. CIT(A) which was earlier disallowed by the AO, is allowed for statistical purposes 5.2 So far as sales commission to the tune of Rs. 1,48,14,014/- paid by the assessee to the foreign entity Heubach GMBH is concerned, the said party is Associated Enterprise of the assessee. The AO referred the matter

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

163/- by ld. CIT(A) which was earlier disallowed by the AO, is allowed for statistical purposes 5.2 So far as sales commission to the tune of Rs. 1,48,14,014/- paid by the assessee to the foreign entity Heubach GMBH is concerned, the said party is Associated Enterprise of the assessee. The AO referred the matter

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

TTEC INDIA CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 20.09.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. She therefore set aside the issue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order, after verifying the income earned by the assessee from outside India. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee