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

condone the delay of 880 days of the Department in filing CO before us. Accordingly, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 15. In the result, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 16. In the result, for assessment year 2007-08, appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is dismissed. Assessment Year

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

condone the delay of 880 days of the Department in filing CO before us. Accordingly, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 15. In the result, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 16. In the result, for assessment year 2007-08, appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is dismissed. Assessment Year

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

condone the delay of 880 days of the Department in filing CO before us. Accordingly, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 15. In the result, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 16. In the result, for assessment year 2007-08, appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is dismissed. Assessment Year

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

condone the delay of 880 days of the Department in filing CO before us. Accordingly, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 15. In the result, CO filed by the Department is hereby dismissed. 16. In the result, for assessment year 2007-08, appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is dismissed. Assessment Year

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 86 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Brief Facts of the Case 4. The assessee company, Atul Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing dyes, specialty chemicals, agrochemicals, bulk drugs, commodity chemicals, and power generation. For AY 2017–18, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2017 declaring total income

MAA SHARDA KOTHARI FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Maa Sharda Kothari Foundation Commissioner Of 7, Mahavir Bungalows Vs. Income Tax Nr.Prernatirth Derasar (Exemption) Jodhpur Gam Vejalpur Ahmedabad 380 015. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaatm 7202 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr

delay of 319 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Facts of the Case 5. The assessee is a registered public charitable trust established under a trust deed and duly registered on 31.05.2002. The trust bears Registration or Incorporation No. E/15324/AHMEDABAD and is stated to be engaged in charitable

KRIPALU MUNI MANDAL TRUST,KALOL,PANCHMAHAL vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2025-26 Kripalu Muni Mandal Trust The Ito, Ward At Malav, Taluka Kalol Vs. Exemption. Dist: Panchmahal. Vadodara. Pan : Aaatk 7859 F Asstt.Year : 2025-26 Shri Kripalu Samadhi Mandir Trust The Ito, Ward At, Post Malav Taluka Kalol Vs Exemption. Malav, Kalol. . Vadodara. Pan : Aapts 9485E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nishit Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025

delay of 85 days in both appeals is hereby condoned. ITA No.1607 and 1608/Ahd/2025 3 3. Facts of the Cases: 3.1 Both the assessees, namely Kripalu Muni Mandal Trust and Shri Kripalu Samadhi Mandir Trust, are long-standing charitable institutions registered under section 12A of the Act, since 2004, and engaged in charitable and religious activities. Consequent to the amendment

SHRI KRIPALU SAMADHI MANDIR TRUST,KALOL vs. THE CIT (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2025-26 Kripalu Muni Mandal Trust The Ito, Ward At Malav, Taluka Kalol Vs. Exemption. Dist: Panchmahal. Vadodara. Pan : Aaatk 7859 F Asstt.Year : 2025-26 Shri Kripalu Samadhi Mandir Trust The Ito, Ward At, Post Malav Taluka Kalol Vs Exemption. Malav, Kalol. . Vadodara. Pan : Aapts 9485E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nishit Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025

delay of 85 days in both appeals is hereby condoned. ITA No.1607 and 1608/Ahd/2025 3 3. Facts of the Cases: 3.1 Both the assessees, namely Kripalu Muni Mandal Trust and Shri Kripalu Samadhi Mandir Trust, are long-standing charitable institutions registered under section 12A of the Act, since 2004, and engaged in charitable and religious activities. Consequent to the amendment

BRIJESHKUMAR NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condonation of the delay submitting that he had permanently shifted to Florida, USA in 2001 and he was running a convenience store at a gas station. That he had become an American citizen in ITA No. 1333/Ahd/2025 [Brijeshkumar Natvarlal Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 4 – 2009 and as per the Indian Taxation Laws, he was an NRI since then

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INT-TAXA-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 176 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are the assessee, International Education And Research, Foundation is engaged in the running of an educational school, under the name of “Mahatma Gandhi, International School”. During the course of 201 proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that foreign remittances were made

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INT-TAXA-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 176 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are the assessee, International Education And Research, Foundation is engaged in the running of an educational school, under the name of “Mahatma Gandhi, International School”. During the course of 201 proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that foreign remittances were made

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

condone the delay. The order was pronounced in the Open Court and hearing of the appeal is being proceeded with. 6. The facts of the present case are that regular assessment under section 143(3) was framed on the assessee for the impugned year on 24.12.2007 determining total income at Rs.16,20,928/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

condone the delay. The order was pronounced in the Open Court and hearing of the appeal is being proceeded with. 6. The facts of the present case are that regular assessment under section 143(3) was framed on the assessee for the impugned year on 24.12.2007 determining total income at Rs.16,20,928/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee

THE SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we are of the view that in light of the discussion above,

established principle of Law by Hon. Supreme Court, Hon. Gujarat High Court, Hon. ITAT, Ahmedabad and in Appellant's own case since its inspection since 66-67 and therefore also, the C1T has erroneously held that entrance fees of Rs.8,63,92,930/- is revenue receipt and taxable as income of the Appellant. It is therefore submitted that relieves claimed

ANIL MANILAL PATEL,ANAND vs. I.T.O WARD-1, ANAND, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Anil Manilal Patel Ito, Ward-1 Hariom Bungalows Vs. Anand. Dr.Kurion Road B/H. Civil Court Anand. Pan : Azopp 5693 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Chirag Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr

permanent resident of the USA for many years and used to visit India occasionally. He claimed that during the period relevant to the assessment, he was out of the country and had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated under section 142(1), and that all notices remained uncomplied due to absence and lack of access to the Income Tax portal