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

AAREEV FOUNDATION,VADODARA vs. CIT(E), AHEMDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 455 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. On Merits: 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Aareev Foundation, filed an application in Form 10AB on 17.09.2023 seeking final registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) after having been

MAYUR NIRMALKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 163 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the trading of petroleum products under the proprietorship concern "Jay Ambe Enterprise". The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 on 18.07.2014, declaring a total income

SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 ITA Nos. 594 & 595/Ahd/2019 Shri Atul Chandrakant Shah Vs. DCIT

SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 ITA Nos. 594 & 595/Ahd/2019 Shri Atul Chandrakant Shah Vs. DCIT

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

SHRI HARDIK SURYAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 under Section 154 of the Act pointing out apparent error

SHRI HARDIK SURYAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 under Section 154 of the Act pointing out apparent error

YOGESH KIRANBHAI MACHHI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleyogesh Kiranbhai Machhi, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 85, Shivam Park Society, Ward-3(1)(1), Opp. Sardar Estate, Vadodara. Ajwa Road, Vadodara-390019 Gujarat.

163/- is merely the amount of Debit Note issued & VAT credit taken by the appellant during the year. Further, Purchases amounting to Rs.6,23,03,847/- as appeared in Appellant's Profit & loss Account for the year is Net Purchase le after deducting the debit note amounting to Rs.1,21,378/- issued by appellant and VAT Credit amounting

THE SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we are of the view that in light of the discussion above,

163/-. In the assessment order so passed, the A.O. made an addition of Rs.2,10,73,529/- being the total of various incomes treated as non-mutuality income and also disallowed a sum of Rs.7,89,314/-claimed against the incomes chargeable under the head "Income from other sources". Thereafter, the appeal filed by the assessee before

THE KANKREJ TALUKA SHIHORI CO. OP. PURCHASE & SALE UNION LTD.,BANASKANTHA vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 80P of the Act. The assessee provided the copy of Supreme Court decision in case of Malviya Service Co-operative Ltd. as mentioned in para 3.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 46,780/-. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance u/s. 80P(2)(e) amounting

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to the other side. 3. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee sold an immovable property bearing Plot No. 182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 at Sushrusha Cooperative Housing Society lying and situated at Swagat Park at Thaltej, Ahmedabad for a consideration