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

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

MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

condone the delay of 1569 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 9. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting deduction under section 80HHC

DEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

delay of 462 days in filling of the instant appeal seems to be bonafide, reasonable, sufficient and unintentional, hence deserves to be condoned. Consequently the same stands condoned. 5. On merits, the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 12 the paper book to submit that as at 31-03-2009, the assessee had reserves and surplus amounting

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

RAJNIKANTH S BHALAVAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Final Appeal.”

condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 4.1 The counsel for the assessee submitted that the before going into the merits of the case, he would like to press for the additional ground of appeal which goes into the root to the matter. The counsel for the assessee submitted that a perusal of the notice issued

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM INVESTMENTS,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

condonation of delay and the same and consequentially the appeal are dismissed." (emphasis supplied) b. ACIT v. Bright Star Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 120 TTJ 498 (Mum) 6. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, we find that the shares held in stock-in trade were converted into investment at the book value shown

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016 With Cross Objection No. 76/Ahd/2015 & 9/Ahd/2017 & I.T.A. No. 3087/Ahd/2016 (In I.T.A. Nos. 742/Ahd/2015, 3078 & 3077/Ahd/2016) & ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

condonation of delay and the same and consequentially the appeal are dismissed." (emphasis supplied) b. ACIT v. Bright Star Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 120 TTJ 498 (Mum) 6. Having heard the rival submissions and from careful perusal of the record, we find that the shares held in stock-in trade were converted into investment at the book value shown

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the CO of the assessee. Hence, we admit the CO filed by the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 28. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground no-1 of its cross objection is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the alternate claim for deduction under section

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. There was a delay of 105 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit stating that the ld. CIT(A) has passed its order on 12th December, 2016. The reason for delay in filing appeal was stated because of misdelivering/displaced

M/S. RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. There was a delay of 105 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit stating that the ld. CIT(A) has passed its order on 12th December, 2016. The reason for delay in filing appeal was stated because of misdelivering/displaced

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HARSHA ENGINEERS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2112/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. M/S.Harsha Engineerings Ltd. Ahmedabad. Sakhej Bavla Road Po Changodar Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 4828 C

2 PCIT-1, PCIT-5, PCIT-6 besides holding the charge of CIT(Exemption), therefore, due to tremendous work load, appeal of the Revenue could not be filed within time. The ld.DR submitted that since delay was caused due to the reasons beyond its control, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. 3. After hearing both the parties

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

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

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

2 I.T.A No. 1365/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Informatics Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 venture capital fund interest from which it is claimed exempted from 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

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”], dated 23.12.2011. 2. The grounds of appealraised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.9,460/- u/s 14A r.w.s. 8D ignoring the fact that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt