BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing howing loan interest of Rs 23,032 u/s 24(b) of the Act 6. The learned CTT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing howing loan interest of Rs 23,032 u/s 24(b) of the Act 6. The learned CTT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in the filing of present of 543 days finding the assessee to have adduced sufficient cause for the delay. 10. Taking up the appeal for adjudication, the order of the Ld. PCIT reveals that he found assessment order passed in the case of the assessee for the impugned year u/s.143(3) of the Act to be erroneous

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

condone the delay of 262 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue

MANSHA TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

House Property”. 4 2.6 Separately, upon verification of the Axis Bank account statement, the AO tabulated credits aggregating to Rs.1,04,99,533/- during the year. Out of these, credits of Rs.54,56,750/- were identified as rent receipts relatable to the four tenants referred to at para 4.1 of the assessment order. The remaining credits

VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

house property is a statutory deduction and has not been allowed. The Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench-A, in the case of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam ITA No. 2271 (MDS) of 2014 for A.Y.2009-10 dated June 2, 2015 has held that in the case of trust Section 22 to 27 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore

SHRI GAURAV VINODBHAI MITRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

house address, which must have been collected by the domestic help, and not brought to the notice of the assessee. Thus, there happened delay of 26 months in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 9. On the other hand, the ld.DR contended that there is a huge delay of 26 months. The assessee must be confronted with demand, and other

KRUNAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

delay of 338 days in the filing of the present appeal is accordingly condoned. 7. The solitary issue for our consideration is the levy of penalty u/s.270A(9) of the Act. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that penalty under the said Subsection is levied for specific cases of mis-reporting of income, which

ASSOCIATION OF INDIA PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC , BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

House, 2nd Floor, Near Processing Centre, Neelkanth Green Bengaluru-560500 Bunglows, Off Sindhu (Respondent) Bhavan Road, Ahmedabad-380058 PAN No:AANCA4932F (Appellant) Appellant by :Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Sudhiksha Rani, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 08-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 22-07-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

condoning the delay. So far as other additions of Rs. 3,95,595/-, the assessee has submitted that this is rental income received from Landmark Education Breakthrough Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on which TDS has been duly deducted. Thus, assessee has accepted an amount of Rs. 3,95,595/- as her income from house property

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

condonation of delay stating as under: ITA No.1303/Ahd/2025 [Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – “1. Appellant Assessee is a Salaried Individual who has filed his Income Tax Return for the year under consideration on 30th March, 2018 vide Acknowledgement Number: 556849120300318 declaring gross total income of Rs. 9,09,414/- Appellant's case was selected for Limited

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

House Property [as per Return of Income] Rs. 10,34,525/- B. Business Income [as per Return of income] Rs.14,81,24,50,439/- Add: Additions / disallowances as discussed above ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 7 – 1. Transfer pricing adjustment on account Rs. 10,29,60,436/- of corporate guarantee (as per Para

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

condone the delay. The contention raised by the assessee in the affidavit is reproduced below: “That we delay in filling this Appeal by 1384 days. This delay was due to various unavoidable circumstances, reasons, situations which were beyond our control, explained hereunder: 1. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd was a 4-Star Export House engaged into Import/Export of Agro Commodities, Chemicals

GOVINDBHAI HIRABHAI BHARVAD,VASNA AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal by the assessee arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 of I.T.A No. 341/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Govindbhai HIrabhai Bharvad vs. ITO the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

properties, the boards may be permitted only to lease out their assets and receive rents. 177. The answers to these, in the opinion of this court, are that the definition ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded. However, the reference to specific provisions enabling or mandating collection of certain rates, tariffs or costs