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.

11 of the Act. The Assessee filed Form 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

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

SHREE HARSANIJI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Harsaniji Public Charitable Trust Ito (Exemption) 32, Shiv Society Part-2 Vs Palanpur. Nr.B.K. Cinema Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aaats 7750 B.

delay in filing of Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 may be condoned under Section 119(2) (b) of the Act." 15. Thus, going by the insertion of new sub-clause (c) of section 11

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 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay can thus be not ignored or condoned

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 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay can thus be not ignored or condoned

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 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay can thus be not ignored or condoned

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 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay can thus be not ignored or condoned

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 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay can thus be not ignored or condoned

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 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 14.4. Thus Ld CIT DR submitted keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Wipro Ltd. and the amendment in the concerned provision, it is clear that the time period provided under the law is not directory but mandatory and the said delay can thus be not ignored or condoned

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 11 of the Act, when such delay had been condoned, resulting into the effect of not having committed any delay

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

Section 11 of the Act,\nwhen such delay had been condoned, resulting into the effect of not having\ncommitted any delay

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

condonation application vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed under section 119(2)(b). 8. The CIT(A) recorded that the sole issue in appeal was the rejection of the claim of exemption under section 11 in the rectification order due to the delayed

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.

condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Thus, we proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. ITA no.192-193/AHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 9 11. At the outset, we note that the quantum addition against which the penalty under section

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)

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

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

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

CONDONATION OF DELAY SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11

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

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

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