WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

02,015/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The ld.AO has scrutinized return in both the years and passed orders under section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 and 29.12.2010. Thereafter, he reopened the assessment by recording reasons and issued notice under section 148 on 15.3.2010 and 6.7.2010 in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

02,015/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The ld.AO has scrutinized return in both the years and passed orders under section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 and 29.12.2010. Thereafter, he reopened the assessment by recording reasons and issued notice under section 148 on 15.3.2010 and 6.7.2010 in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively

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)

02. Why provisions of the section 2(15) shall not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public 82 utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any activity

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)

02. Why provisions of the section 2(15) shall not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public 82 utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any activity

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)

02. Why provisions of the section 2(15) shall not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public 82 utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any activity

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)

02. Why provisions of the section 2(15) shall not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public 82 utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any activity

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)

02. Why provisions of the section 2(15) shall not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public 82 utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any activity

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)

02. Why provisions of the section 2(15) shall not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, section 2(15) was amended vide Finance Act, 2008 by adding a proviso which states that the 'advancement of any other object of general public 82 utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any activity

PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Final Appeal.

section 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be I.T.A No. 448/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 4 Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea

BHAVNATH EDUCATION TRUST,BAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1559/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Bhavnath Education Trust Income Tax Officer Bhanagar Highway, Dist. (Exemption) Vs. Bhavnagar, Ranghola- Ward, Bhavnagar 364230 / Aayakar Bhawan, Income Sanghavi & Company, Tax Office, Bhavanagar Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2003J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M K Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2026 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

condoned for which act of kindness the appellant will forever pray.” ITA No.1559/Ahd/2025 [Bhavnath Education Trust vs. ITO(E)] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – 3. To substantiate the above explanation for the delay in filing of the present appeal being on account of the order being served on an incorrect email ID, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew my attention

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)

02,90,489/- Chapter VI-A Rs. 2,39,90,500/- ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 9 – Total Income Rs. 18,04,62,99,989 /- Rounded off Rs. 18,04,62,99,990 /- U/s. 288A MAT Calculation u/s. 115JB: Book profit as per Rs. 2003,62,62,535 Return of Income Add: Disallowance

THE KHEDBRAHMA TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which

condone the delay of 9 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. Condonation of Delay 3. The appeals were filed with a delay of 131 days. The assessee submitted that the delay was caused due to the disruptions arising from the COVID

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. Condonation of Delay 3. The appeals were filed with a delay of 131 days. The assessee submitted that the delay was caused due to the disruptions arising from the COVID

MOHMMADHAROON BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohmmadharoon Babubhai Shaikh The Ito, Shrine Co-Op Ind. Estate Vs. Ward-1(1)(2) Rakhial, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Afaps 2723 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vipul Gohil, Ca Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

delay of 373 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in agricultural activity and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017– 18 on 05.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 147/151(1) of the Act in para 9- 11 of his reason for reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The ld. D.R. further pointed out that the grounds challenging issuance of notice u/s. 148 was also taken before the ld. CIT(A) which was dealt in detail by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision