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)

Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were authorized to condone delay beyond 365 days upto 03 years in filing Forms 9A and 10

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)

Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were authorized to condone delay beyond 365 days upto 03 years in filing Forms 9A and 10

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)

Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were authorized to condone delay beyond 365 days upto 03 years in filing Forms 9A and 10

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)

Section 119(2) of the Act where delay is upto 365 days. 7.2 More recently, by way of similar CBDT Circular No. 17/2022 dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioners were authorized to condone delay beyond 365 days upto 03 years in filing Forms 9A and 10

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the CO of the assessee. Hence, we admit the CO filed by the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 28. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground no-1 of its cross objection is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the alternate claim for deduction under section

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 11 could not be denied merely on account of such delay, especially when the audit report was eventually filed along with the revised return of income. The assessee also placed reliance on the subsequent CBDT Circular No. 16/2024 dated 18.11.2024, which provides a mechanism for condonation of delay in filing Forms No. 9A, 10

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\n: 19-03-2025\n: 03-04-2025\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nV

section\n44AF of the Act. As such, the reply submitted by the assessee vide\nletter dated 22 January 2014 was rejected by the AO stating that the\ndetailed furnished was incomplete but how was it incomplete, the\norder of the AO is silent. It is the settled law that only the credit\nsides of the bank do not represent

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.192-193/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.441-1, Sector-22, Vs. Ward-1, Nr. Police Chowkey, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The present appeal relating to the penalty preferred by the assessee was filed late by 1607 days. However, the delay in the quantum appeal for the identical number of days has already been condoned

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)

condoning the delay in filing appeal. The relevant finding of the ITAT in this regard are contained at para 13 & 14 of its order as under: “13. As is evident from perusal of the above, the assessee has pleaded ill-advice on the part of his first legal consultant, as the cause for the delay in filing appeal; that

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

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

condone the delay in Registration of the Trust. However, the CBDT has extended the above time limits by invoking section 119 of the Act by issuing circular No. 8 of 2022, dated 31-03- 2022 extending the time limit upto 30th September, 2022. It is thereafter by circular No. 6 of 2023 dated 24-05-2023 clarified as follows

MSK PROJECT (INDIA) JV LTD. CO.(MERGED WITH MADHAV INFRA PROJECT LTD),VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

10 MSK Project (I) Jv Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2005-06 to condone the delay of 2459 days in filing the present appeal before us and entertain the appeal of the assessee. 15. We refer to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others

TEJAS KARSHANBHAI DARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the delay needed to be condoned since the delay could not be attributed to the assessee, but to the negligence on the part of the professional engaged by it for the said purpose. That the assessee should not be made to suffer for the negligent act of the professionals which