ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B. Such grant of approval condoning

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, condoning the delay in filing of Form\n10B. Such grant of approval condoning the delay in filing Form 10B

HEALTH FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 11 solely on account of such delay. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that both the delay in filing Form 10B and the delay of 63 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A) deserve to be condoned

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

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

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

10B electronically in accordance with requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessee also filed an application under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay

SHIKSHA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 11 for want of submission of Form No. 10B within due date on appeal Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form 10B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No 273. dated 3-6-1980 CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay

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

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

condoning the delay in filing Form 10B and claim benefit of Section 11 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this

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)

10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 11 (Madras) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, Le, delay in filing

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)

10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 11 (Madras) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, Le, delay in filing

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)

10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 11 (Madras) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, Le, delay in filing

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)

10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 11 (Madras) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, Le, delay in filing

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)

10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 11 (Madras) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, Le, delay in filing

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)

10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 9. Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain v. DCIT, (Exemptions), Chennai [2019] 110 taxmann.com 11 (Madras) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, Le, delay in filing

SHREE NITYANANDSWAMI EDUCATION TRUST,DHARMAJ TARAPUR ROAD NAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT (EXEMPTION) AHMEDBAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 11 and 12 of the Act on ground of Form 10B filed beyond due date is not correct as CBDT has already condone the delay

GYANDEEP CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU NOW THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

section 12A (1)(b) required the appellant to file Form 10B before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) which in this case is 31.12.2021. If there is delay in filing Form 10B, delay can be regularised by making an application to CIT concerned for condonation

APRAMEYA ENGINEERING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 1(1)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICER , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2022-23 Aprameya Engineering Limited The Income Tax Officer 908, 9Th Floor, Vs Ward-1(1)(1) Venus Atlantis Ahmedabad Corporate Park Anandnagar, Prahlad Nagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Aawca 3138 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Add/Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5 Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As “The Cit(A)”), Dated 23-02-2024, Which Dismissed The Assessee'S Appeal Against The Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”), Passed By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. The Primary Issue Is The Rejection Of The Assessee'S Claim For Taxation At A Lower Rate Under Section Aprameya Engineering Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2022-23

condone the delay in filing such forms. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) passed by the Ld. AO by denying the benefit of the lower

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD, VADODARA. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 EXEMPTIONS, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1187/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-10 Gujarat Technological University, The Dcit, Nr. Vishwakarma Govt. Engg. College, बनाम/ Circle-1, V/S. Near Visar Three Roads, Exemptions, Chandkheda Society Area S.O, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad-382424. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaalg1109L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 14.03.2025, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019–20, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under

delay in furnishing Form No. 10, Form No. 10B, and the revised return, both before the CIT(E), Ahmedabad, on 05.02.2024 and before the CBDT on 12.02.2024. The CIT(E) rejected the condonation application vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed under section

INDIAN REDCROSS SOCIETY ANAND DISTRICT BRANCH,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected exemption claimed on ground that assessee had failed to file Form No. 10B within due date. Thereafter, assessee filed Form No. 10B belatedly and sought to condone delay

M/S. ALPHATECH SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2734/Ahd/2015 is dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Alphatech Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, 5, Aryan Industrial Estate, Baroda. Opp. Matruchaya Marriage Hall, B/H. Pvr Cinema, Channi, Baroda – 390 024. [Pan – Aadca 0799 A] Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Respondent By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Cit (Dr) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Alphatech Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5, Aryan Industrial Estate, Ward – 1(1), Baroda. Opp. Matruchaya Marriage Hall, B/H. Pvr Cinema, Channi, Baroda – 390 024. [Pan – Aadca 0799 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Respondent By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017 O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiyathese Are Appeals By The Revenue Preferred Against Two Separate Orders For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

delay is not condoned and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 6. Now we take up ITA No.2735/Ahd/2015. With this appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the order of CIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 27.07.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The only grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer