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

144C(5) of the Act. The assessment pertains to the Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an 2 application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri Gopi

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

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

1)(vi) of the Act read with Article-13 of India-UK DTAA. The said order was challenged by the assessee company through Writ Petition (Civil) No.64 of 2014 before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. After going through the submissions of the assessee and the records available, the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules

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

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

delay in filing of appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned. 3. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09 and the case of the assessee was referred to TPO under section 92CA(1) of the Act. Draft order under section 92CA(3) was passed after making

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

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