SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SATTARBHAI SULEMANBHAI MANSURI,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that actual consideration received was only Rs.5,00,000/- (1/5th of Rs.25 lakhs) which was declared in the return of income , the property was sold to a community trust and the assessee had specifically requested

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:

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 in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing it in limine without considering the ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

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:

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 in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing it in limine without considering the ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

u/s 270A(6) of the Act. Further that the assessee did not contest Narayanbhai Shivabhai Patel vs. ITO Page 4 of 7 the valuation of the stamp duty adopted by the authorities. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act was squarely applicable and the addition of Rs.30,50,000/- as made by the Assessing Officer

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

50C of the Act which is nothing but a deeming provision. Limitation u/s 275: 6) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in levying a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act even when the appeal against assessment order under section

BHUPENDRABHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, ANAND

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

u/s 50C of the Act\nwithout referring the valuation to the DVO to ascertain fair market value of the land\nunder consideration without offering any cogent reasons for non-reference to DVO\ndespite of repeated requested of your appellant for reference to DVO for arriving the\nfair market value of the land under consideration and thus depriving the appellant

RAJESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) (2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13

penalty under section 271(1)(b) was initiated for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1). The total assessed income was thus computed as under: 4 Particulars Amount (Rs.) Returned income 2,19,940/- Addition under section 50C 2,04,081/- Addition on account of capital gains 10,04,081/- Total Assessed Income 14,28,102/- The assessment

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal