REAL CARGO MUMBAI,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

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

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the 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. This is a second round of litigation before ITAT. In the first round of litigation, the ITAT

SHRI MOHMED SHAKIL MOHMED SHAFI MUTWALLI,,HIMATNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-3., HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone delay of 26th days in filing this appeal. 5. The fact in brief is that original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized in the case of the assessee on 26th March, 2014 determining total income at Rs. 9,15,737/-. Subsequently, ld. CIT has passed order u/s. 263 and directed the Assessing Officer to make afresh

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

194C of the Act. Despite these payments,\nthe assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant year. The\nAssessing Officer issued various notices of hearing, but the assessee filed no\nresponse to the same. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee continued\nto remain non-compliant and failed to respond to the notices issued or\nparticipate

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

194C of the Act. Despite these payments,\nthe assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant year. The\nAssessing Officer issued various notices of hearing, but the assessee filed no\nresponse to the same. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee continued\nto remain non-compliant and failed to respond to the notices issued or\nparticipate

EXPRESS CARGO CARRIERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

194C. 4. The learned A.O. as well as Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred while not considering that during the course of appellant proceedings the appellant has already filed the quarterly TDS returns of the year under consideration and the non-filing of TDS returns was a technical breach and the same had been concluded, however

VINPACK AGRO PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ITO 4(1)(4) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

194C of the Act and thus this was treated as undisclosed contract receipt. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The assessee has taken additional ground of appeal thereby stating that the CIT(A) has erred in law in not declaring

M/S. B. NANJI A,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(12), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1858/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

delay of 124 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is accordingly condoned. 7. On merits, the learned AR submitted that the assessee has incurred interest expenses of Rs.50,78,412/- whereas the TDS has not been deducted only for an amount of Rs.15,00,681/- for the reasons that the depositors had furnished declaration obliged under s.197A