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?

3) of section 143 of the Act. Consequently, if such notice is not issued within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act viz. before the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished, it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed further with

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

delay in filing appeal before NFAC may be condoned. 4. Ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that appellant has judgment in his own case being appeal no. ITA No.2251/Ahd/2015 DATED 30/09/2021 against which no appeal has been filed before High Court and therefore said appellate order dated 30/09/2021 has become final and binding therefore NFAC has ought to have given

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD (UNDER LIQUIDATION),MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

delay in filing appeal before NFAC may be condoned. 4. Ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that appellant has judgment in his own case being appeal no. ITA No.2251/Ahd/2015 DATED 30/09/2021 against which no appeal has been filed before High Court and therefore said appellate order dated 30/09/2021 has become final and binding therefore NFAC has ought to have given

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee in statement of facts as well as grounds of appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) , stated as under:- “A. Statement of Facts 1.The Appellant is Individual and shifted to Mumbai after the death of her husband. 2. The assessee

SHRI DEVENDRA THAKERSHIBHAI THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. On Merits 7. During the course of hearing before us the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee argued on the basis of key points relating to – - Verification of Books of Accounts in the Remand Report by the AO. - Summons to Sundry Creditors/Debtors by the AO. - Contradiction

M/S. B. NANJI A,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(12), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1859/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 M/S.B. Nanji A Ito, Ward-3(3)(12) Pan : Aakfb 3025 G Vs. Ahmedabad. C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co. Chartered Accountants 105, Sakar-I, Nr. Gandhigram Railway Station, Off Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri P.D. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the Registry pointed out appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is time barred by 104 days. It is seen from the record that no application for condonation

AIRONA TILES LIMITED,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE HIMATNAGAR PRESENTLY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF. - Rs.10,100/- under Section 43B of the Act on account of Disallowance of professional tax. - Rs.9,640/- relating to (Prior period expenses) disallowed as they pertained to an earlier year. - Rs.65,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act being cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- in a day. - Rs.12,80,000/- under Section

KANTIBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

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

condonation of delay in this regard. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(v)of the Act was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide the impugned order and the provisional registration granted earlier was also cancelled. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us.The

M/S. RATNAVEER STAINLESS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 1074 days is condoned. 6. Now coming to the merits of the case, the facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,52,38,160/- . The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued on 27.09.2011. The assessee is engaged