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

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?

delayed in terms of the time prescribed u/s 143(2) of the Act. Section 143(2) prescribes the time limit as under:- “143… (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case

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

11(2) had been claimed, nor any application made under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to comply with the condition laid down in section 12A(1

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)

11 – Event Particulars Date End of the Assessment 31 March 2017 Year for AY 2016-17 Time limit for 21 months from end of the AY 31 December completion of - Section 153(1) of the Act 2018 assessment where no reference is made to a TPO Time limit for 12 months in addition to the 31 December completion of time

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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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.

11 (b) the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5); (c) the statement referred to in clause (1) is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section(1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous years.” 14. Further

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