SUNPACK BARRIER FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 115 BAA, the tax @25% was calculated under normal provisions of Income Tax Laws, thereby creating additional tax demand on the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that CBDT has issued Circular No. 19/2023 Sunpack Barrier Films Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2021-22 - 4– for condoning the delay

NIPA NISHITHBHAI PARIKH(EARLIER KNOWN AS NIPA K. MEHTA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Nipa Nishithbhai Park Ito, Ward-3(2)(10) Earlier Known As Vs Ahmedabad. Nipa Kiritkumar Mehta A-96, Namrata Tenement Nr.Paras Nagar Bug Stop Isanpur, Ahmedabad 382 443 Pan : Aoxpm 5496 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Pamil H. Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2045 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /04/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

condonation of delay without considering the facts on records and without considering evidences produced during the course of hearing. 2 2. learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in sustaining addition u/s.69 of Rs.43,49,650/-, on account of cash deposit and credit entries in bank. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

Section 253(6)(d). Thus, the appeal fee paid was deficient by Rs. 9500/- which the assesse is required to deposit, were the contention of ld. DR. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesse will deposit the deficient fee of Rs. 9,500/- , although the assesse was earlier having a bonafide belief that the assesse was liable

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 86 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Brief Facts of the Case 4. The assessee company, Atul Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing dyes, specialty chemicals, agrochemicals, bulk drugs, commodity chemicals, and power generation. For AY 2017–18, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2017 declaring total income

GRAM SEVA SAMAJ VANKAL,SURAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation of delay of 115 days in filing the appeal against the order rejecting approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. The delay

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

delay is accordingly condoned. I.T.A No. 2022/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vijay D. Patel vs. CIT 3. Proceeding to adjudicate the issue before us ,it transpires from the order of the ld. PCIT, that the revisionary power was exercised on the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee in reassessment proceedings

STRATEGIC INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of providing service. The return of income was filed on 28.09.2015 showing total income at Rs.28,26,650/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) by the Assessing Officer (CPC). During the year

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC LTD., VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Dict, Cir.1(1)(1) Ms.Alembic Ltd. Vadodara. Vs Alembic Road Vadodara-3. Pan : Aabca 7950 P

115 days has been caused, which is beyond the control of the Department. Therefore, impugned delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal requires to be condoned, and the appeal of the Revenue may be adjudicated on merit. For support of his submission, the ld.DR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motto Writ Petition

ITO, WARD - 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE GAYATRI COTTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay in filing the cross objection is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 declaring income of Rs. 13,76,71,580/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment various additions were made by the Assessing Officer

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal