DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay of 155 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for hearing. On the legal grounds – additional grounds raised by way of written submissions: 7. The Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee, raised several legal grounds through written submissions in ITA No. 1095/Ahd/2024 (AY 2016-17) and ITA No. 1096/Ahd/2024 (AY 2017-18) challenging

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 9

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

MAA SHARDA KOTHARI FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Maa Sharda Kothari Foundation Commissioner Of 7, Mahavir Bungalows Vs. Income Tax Nr.Prernatirth Derasar (Exemption) Jodhpur Gam Vejalpur Ahmedabad 380 015. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaatm 7202 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr

delay of 319 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Facts of the Case 5. The assessee is a registered public charitable trust established under a trust deed and duly registered on 31.05.2002. The trust bears Registration or Incorporation No. E/15324/AHMEDABAD and is stated to be engaged in charitable

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering reply filed by the assessee and the Affidavit by Shri Mahesh Vitthaldas Desai and Smt. Smita Mahesh Desai dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as follows: “5.4 Nowhere in the affidavit Sh. Maheshkumar V. Desai and Smitaben M. Desal have stated that they have paid

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering reply filed by the assessee and the Affidavit by Shri Mahesh Vitthaldas Desai and Smt. Smita Mahesh Desai dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as follows: “5.4 Nowhere in the affidavit Sh. Maheshkumar V. Desai and Smitaben M. Desal have stated that they have paid

SHRI ISHWARBHAI V PRAJAPATI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ishwarbhai V. Prajapati Pr.Cit, Vadodara A-2, Shantipark Society Vs Vadodara. Nr.Amitnagar Char Rasta Vip Road, Karelibaug, Vadodara Pan : Aeapp 0200 M

section 263 of the Act by order dated 2.12.2019 that was the subject matter of appeal pending before the CIT(A), Vadodara, and the assessee has opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed form no.1 and 2 and also paid taxes thereon and intimation of payment in form no.4 also obtained. Assessee has filed copies of form no.1

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

160/-,\naccompanied by Form 16, bank passbook, and salary slips. The entire\nincome so declared was duly reflected in Form 26AS and subjected to\nTDS. Importantly, the said return was accepted as such by the\nAssessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B without any variation\nor disallowance. It is also a matter of record that the assessee paid\nthe entire

PATIDAR SAMAJ TRUST KHAJURDI,VALSAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.09.2023. Date of provisional approval as per Form 10AC was granted on 15.10.2021. In reference to the application filed by the applicant Trust in Form 10AB with the details the applicant was requested to submit certain details/documents vide notice dated 21.11.2023 and 22.12.2023. The applicant Trust submitted certain details/documents

THE NA vs. ARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,NAVSARIVS.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: 30.09.2022 As It Has Already Commenced 06.03.2004 Activities On 06-03-2022. 2. The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Has Erred In Facts & In Law In Rejecting The Application Under Section 80G (5) For The Reason That The Trust University Has Made Application For Final Registration Within The Validity Of Provisional Registration & That The Provisional Registration Is Valid Till Ay 2025-26. 3. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law, The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Erred In Rejecting Assessee'S Application U/S 80G(5) Filed On 28.03.2023 On The Ground That Assessee Didn'T File The Application Before 30.09.2022 When The Assessee Has Filed The Application In Time As Per The Extension Granted Till 30.09.2023 As Per Circular No.6/2023 Dated 29-05-2023

condone delay in filing form No 10AB for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter on delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal” I.T.A No. 435/Ahd/2024 A.Y. N.A. Page No. 3 The Navsari Agricultural University vs. CIT (E) 3. The brief facts

TRISHA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

160/- and book profit under Section 115JB amounting to Rs.66,88,817/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 08.08.2013 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 05.03.2015. The Assessing Officer made the following additions: 1 Total income as per return of Rs.73

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and now take up the appeal for adjudication. 10. Shri Soumitra Choudhary Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the TDS certificate was received by the Assessee from China only in September 2009, hence it was not possible for the Assessee to claim tax credit

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and now take up the appeal for adjudication. 10. Shri Soumitra Choudhary Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the TDS certificate was received by the Assessee from China only in September 2009, hence it was not possible for the Assessee to claim tax credit

KELAVANI MANDAL VALVOD TRUSTEE,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 357/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2017-2018 Kelvani Mandal Valvod Trustee, D.C.I.T., C/O Sarvajanik High School, Vs. Cpc , Valvod, Borsad, Banglore. Anand-388530. Pan: Aaatk2450L

condone the delay happened in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. A.Y. 2017-18 3 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The commissioner of appeals erred in not granting deduction of expenses of Rs.2,19,094/- from gross income. 4.1 The assessee has raised the following Additional ground

BHETASI KELVANI MANDAL,BHETASI vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay happened in filing the appeals by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. ITA nos.360-361/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 3 ITA No. 360/Ahd/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 5. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A), erred in confirming the intimation issued by the CPC, Bangalore by applying the maximum marginal

SHREE GOPAL ASHRAM,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay happened in filing the appeals by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. ITA nos.362-363/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 3 ITA No. 362/Ahd/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 5. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the intimation issued by the CPC, Bangalore by applying the maximum

VASNA EDUCATION TRUST, VASNA,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay happened in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. A.Y.2017-18 3 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in its ground and additional ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the intimation issued by the CPC, Bangalore by applying the maximum marginal rate

BHETASI KELVANI MANDAL,BHETASI vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay happened in filing the appeals by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. ITA nos.360-361/AHD/2021 A.Y.s 2016-17 & 2017-18 3 ITA No. 360/Ahd/2021 for A.Y.2016-17 5. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A), erred in confirming the intimation issued by the CPC, Bangalore by applying the maximum marginal