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

section 144C(5) of the Act. The assessment pertains to the Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset

PRABODH MOHANLAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the Asst. Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 331/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Prabodh Mohanlal Shah vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Non Resident Indian residing in United States of America has shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.56

REJENDRA RAMJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The majority of the Members of DRP held that Form 35A signed by I.T.A No. 138/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Rajendra Ramjibhai Patel vs. ACIT the Authorized Representative is treated as filed beyond time limit and hence

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. MISSION PHARMA LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has also filed a Cross Objection against the said appeal. The Revenue raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the adjustments on the basis of “aggregation” of international transactions without giving

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LTD. (FORMERLY AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LTD.),KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT (INT. TAXA.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144C dated 04.11.2019 filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel vide order dated 24.01.2020 has given certain directions and final assessment was passed on 30.07.2020 thereby making addition of Rs.10,77,70,428/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The appeal filed before us is filed belatedly

WEATHERFORD DRILLING & PRODUCTION SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Act vide order dated 17/10/2018 passed for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. At the outset, the counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 33 days in filing of the present appeal and filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of such delay. The reason cited in the affidavit produced before

ROHIT JAYANTILAL SONI,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 250 days in filing the above appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Non-Resident residing in USA. The assessee had invested in Max Life Insurance ULIP plan and received maturity proceeds of Rs.52,70,612/- and claimed to be exempt u/s. 10(10D) of the Act, hence

KAMLESHKUMAR BABALAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A Nos. 2461 & 2476/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 2 Kamleshkumar Babalal Shah Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed his Return of Income admitting total income

KAMLESHKUMAR BABALAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 1 GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A Nos. 2461 & 2476/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 2 Kamleshkumar Babalal Shah Vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed his Return of Income admitting total income

THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. M/S. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL & CO.,, KHEDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

144C(1) r.w.s. 92CA(3) vide order dated 05/03/2021 passed for the assessment year 2014-15. I.T.A No. 201/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No. 2 ACIT vs. M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case