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

TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

delay in filing the present appeal is accordingly condoned. 8. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us on merit. 7 9. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as they are a blend of descriptive and argumentative contents.In fact,these

CHIRAG BALKRISHNA PATEL,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-3(1)(2) VADODARA), GODHRA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chirag Balkrishna Patel Income Tax Officer, 15, Adarsh Society, Vs Ward-1, Godhra Vadodara Road, (Previous, Ito, Ward-3(1)(2), Halol, 389350 Vadodra) Gujarat Pan: Butpp1753 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – [National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”) Which Was Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”).

section 69A of the Act without considering the facts and merit of the case and prays your honour to kindly delete the same. 5. Kindly stay the demand. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary. Facts of the Case: 3. The appellant is an individual who, filed

BHAGYALAXMI STEEL ROLLING MILL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay and admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 10. Having said so, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised before us which read as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on acts of the case, in sustaining addition of alleged cessation of liability of Rs.5,45

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

45,675/-. In absence of any details such as opening stock, closing stock, purchase, sales, various business expenses claimed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer finalized assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act and estimated net profit @ 8% of gross sales amounting to Rs. 2,08,67,654/- and added the same to the total income

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

45,675/-. In absence of any details such as opening stock, closing stock, purchase, sales, various business expenses claimed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer finalized assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act and estimated net profit @ 8% of gross sales amounting to Rs. 2,08,67,654/- and added the same to the total income

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

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

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 285 days in filing the above appeals. 2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the Assessee is an Autonomous Body which is established under 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (XXVII of 1976) and Rules made thereunder carrying Planned Development of areas as defined and designed by the Government

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 285 days in filing the above appeals. 2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the Assessee is an Autonomous Body which is established under 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (XXVII of 1976) and Rules made thereunder carrying Planned Development of areas as defined and designed by the Government

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing