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

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 5 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. section 271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 5 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. section 271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

u/s. 44AB of the Act and thus the Id.AO imposed penalty on appellant. 3. The appellant is engaged in running a proprietary business wherein maintenance of books of accounts was not required statutorily, therefore the land purchased were not recorded in the books of account. The appellant had treated the said land as Investment. The Id.AO during the course

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

u/s. 44AB of the Act and thus the Id.AO imposed penalty on appellant. 3. The appellant is engaged in running a proprietary business wherein maintenance of books of accounts was not required statutorily, therefore the land purchased were not recorded in the books of account. The appellant had treated the said land as Investment. The Id.AO during the course

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

u/s. 44AB of the Act and thus the Id.AO imposed penalty on appellant. 3. The appellant is engaged in running a proprietary business wherein maintenance of books of accounts was not required statutorily, therefore the land purchased were not recorded in the books of account. The appellant had treated the said land as Investment. The Id.AO during the course

NILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURIDIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

u/s 271B are wrongly initiated on facts of the\ncase. It be so held now.\n9. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or\nmodify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.\"\n6. Shri S.N. Divatia, Ld. AR of the assessee, explained that the\nassessee is a trader

NILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURIDIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

u/s 271B are wrongly initiated on facts of the\ncase. It be so held now.\n9.\nThe assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or\nmodify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.”\n6.\nShri S.N. Divatia, Ld. AR of the assessee, explained that the\nassessee is a trader

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are Null and VOID and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same please be held accordingly. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held

INFINITY BUILDCOM,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABNAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by passing an ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” Infinity Buildcom vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3. At the outset, we note that the present appeal is time barred by 60 days