M. PRATAPRAY PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

14A of the Act of Rs. 20,18,138/- by the Ld. A.O. 3. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 125 days in filing of the present appeal

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds in CO in memo of CO filed with ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which is listed

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds in CO in memo of CO filed with ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which is listed

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds in CO in memo of CO filed with ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which is listed

GUJARAT INFORMATICS LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

section 67A which is disallowable u/s. 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee committed default in not disallowing the expenditure related to exempt income u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act which resulted in income to the tune of Rs. 1,43,93,193/-. The assessee has not filed the explanation regarding

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

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)

14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

TURAKHIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.677/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16)

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of decorative veneers and ply- woods and other related products and also dealing in finance & trading in shares and securities since last many years. The assessee filed its return of income on 09/09/2015

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under: “ITA No. 1588/Ahd/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR, PRAHLAD NAGAR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PORODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under: “ITA No. 1588/Ahd/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

SAMADARSHAN TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 109 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application electronically in Form 10AB seeking approval under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Commissioner (Exemptions) examined the application

JITENDRAKUMAR MAFATLAL SHAH,AHMADABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

delay of 46 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Your appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (herein after referred to as 'Ld CIT (Appeals), Income tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

V-ONE SOCIETY,VADODARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee / applicant trust filed application for approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) in Form 10AB under clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section

AATMAN FOUNDATION,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 109 days is condoned on due consideration of facts of assessee’s case and owing to causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application in Form 10AB on 23.02.2024 for approval under section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act. In response

AMJAY MEDIMAX INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.731/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amjay Medimax India The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 4Th Floor, Medi Max House Ahmedabad - 380 015 Opp.Karnavati Hospital Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 8241 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/02/2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Arose Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-18

14A r.w. Rule 8D: Rs.25,41,178/-. Short-term capital loss treated as a colourable device: Rs.33,60,000/-. • Disallowance under section 37(1): Rs.4,36,87,857/-. • Disallowance for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI: Rs.1,22,836/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Multiple notices were issued

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