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)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

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)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

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)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

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)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

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)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

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

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

37 as against section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in relation to the solitary addition made while framing the assessment cannot be a ground to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act. 4. The Ld. PCIT has erred, both in law and on facts, in not appreciating that provisions of section 263 could not have been invoked

BANYAN & BERRY ALLOYS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2009/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2006-2007

37,500/- the return was ultimately finalized in scrutiny proceeding by the Ld.AO by making addition of Rs.12,39,230/- to the total income of the assessee by disallowing the Guest House Expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the assessee. An appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was filed against the said order by the assessee which was disposed

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

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

37,628/- was applied towards the object of the trust, whereas Rs. 46,62,372/- was applied as per clause (2) of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee received a communication from the Assessing Officer informing the assessee has not filed the Audit Report. Immediately thereafter, the assessee realized its mistake and filed the Audit Report in Form

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD (UNDER LIQUIDATION),MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

condonation of delay however also examined the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal. For other two assessment years also the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit. The assessee raised multiple grounds before CIT(A). In the first ground, it was contended that the AO had erred in disallowing deduction under section 80P amounting

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

condonation of delay however also examined the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal. For other two assessment years also the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit. The assessee raised multiple grounds before CIT(A). In the first ground, it was contended that the AO had erred in disallowing deduction under section 80P amounting

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

37 taxmann.com 418 in support of the above contention. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even the assessee has not denied service of notice dated 24.09.2008 under Section 143(2) of the Act, which was duly served upon the assessee on 30.09.2008. Therefore, even despite valid service of notice on the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

37 taxmann.com 418 in support of the above contention. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. submitted that even the assessee has not denied service of notice dated 24.09.2008 under Section 143(2) of the Act, which was duly served upon the assessee on 30.09.2008. Therefore, even despite valid service of notice on the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10– 26. In the said Affidavit filed by the assessee, ha has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 63 years and that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee has explained that he had been suffering from serious and prolonged medical conditions from the year 2016 to 2022, including chronic illness, multiple

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10– 26. In the said Affidavit filed by the assessee, ha has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 63 years and that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee has explained that he had been suffering from serious and prolonged medical conditions from the year 2016 to 2022, including chronic illness, multiple

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10– 26. In the said Affidavit filed by the assessee, ha has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 63 years and that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee has explained that he had been suffering from serious and prolonged medical conditions from the year 2016 to 2022, including chronic illness, multiple

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10– 26. In the said Affidavit filed by the assessee, ha has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 63 years and that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. The assessee has explained that he had been suffering from serious and prolonged medical conditions from the year 2016 to 2022, including chronic illness, multiple