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)

10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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)

10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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)

10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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)

10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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)

10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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)

10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

10. A study of the provisions of section 139 of the Act shows that under sub- section (1) thereof, an assessee is required to file return on or before the due date. As to which is the due date for filing of return has been provided under Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of 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

10 before date of furnishing return under section 139(1) - Assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act praying for condonation of delay

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeals. We shall first take up ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 in the case of Shri Rohit C. Thakore for A.Y. 2011-12 5. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 “1

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

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

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under 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