SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter." (p. 192

NAVI MASJID MAHFILE HUSEN MADRASE TARKKI ISLAM HUSAINI TEKRI,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter." (p. 192

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter." (p. 192

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter." (p. 192

NOORMAHMEDBHAI HAJIBHAI MOMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

condoning inordinate delay of I.T.A No. 279/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 2 Noormahmedbhai Hajibhai Momin vs. ITO, NFAC more than 192 days as barred by limitation ignoring the reasons furnished at the appeal filling stage. The specific grounds are as under. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner

SHRI HEMENDRA LILACHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.500/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Shri Hemendra Lilachand Shah, Income Tax Officer, 2, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Ward-5(2)(3), Bhuderpura Road, Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aelps5265E

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter." (p. 192

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

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

SARDARBHAI RAMSANGBHAI DHULIYA ,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 PREVIOUSLY WARD-5, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

condone the delay of 111 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 4.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return

VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

Section 22 to 27 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore, CPC has correctly rejected the appellants claim. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. The assessee, dissatisfied with the decision of Ld CIT(A), filed this appeal before us. 7. This appeal was filed with a delay of 192 days with a request in the form of an affidavit to condone

EKLAVYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 315/Ahd/2020 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Eklavya Education The Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Foundation Vs. Tax Core House, Off. C. G. Circle–1, Exemptions, Road, Nr. Parimal Garden, Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – 380006 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace7987R (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 14/10/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

condone the delay. 3. The assessee has come up in appeal mainly on following ground: “1. The learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law and on facts in wrongly applying section 11(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and not allowing our claim of depreciation of Rs.85,10,192

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in the filing of the appeal and hence the same is hereby condoned. 5. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “Non-jurisdiction of AO 1) The case was re-opened by AO who never had jurisdiction over the assessee as the assessee was never residing or having any address in ALWAR i.e. the jurisdiction

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in the filing of the appeal and hence the same is hereby condoned. 5. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “Non-jurisdiction of AO 1) The case was re-opened by AO who never had jurisdiction over the assessee as the assessee was never residing or having any address in ALWAR i.e. the jurisdiction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby being condoned. On Merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business of building infrastructure facilities and earning income by way of collecting toll from vehicles running on roads constructed by the assessee. DCIT vs. Kota Baran Tollway Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani