VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. ITA No.868/Ahd/2023 [Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – 2. The appeal is noted by the Registry to be delayed for filing by 543 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay attributing

BHARATKUMAR SOMABHAI PATEL,BANASHKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as in limine

47,340/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 7 years and 2 months. In the condonation delay petition, the assessee pleaded that he used to handover the notices to the Accountant to make due compliances. Thus the assessee was left

DCIT (E) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT COUNCIL OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

condoning the delay in filing Form 10 ignoring the fact that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act as per the proviso to Section 2(15) r.w.s.13(8) of the I.T. Act. (vi) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3

DCIT (E) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT COUNCIL OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

condoning the delay in filing Form 10 ignoring the fact that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act as per the proviso to Section 2(15) r.w.s.13(8) of the I.T. Act. (vi) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3

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)

2. The Department contends that since the Transfer Pricing Officer namely, the second respondent herein has passed the order on 01.11.2019, the said order is within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 92 CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act. However, the same is disputed by the petitioner, who would contend that sixty days period expired

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

condone the delay and proceed to decided both the appeals on merit. 9. First we take IT(SS)A.No.45/Ahd/2020 (Quantum appeal): 10. In this appeal, the assessee has taken one additional ground of appeal, whereby he has pleaded as under: “The action of the ld.AO in framing the assessment u/s.153A r.w. section

VARUN KAMALCHAND JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

section of the I.T. Act the assessee is required to present the appeal within 30 days of receipt of assessment order that is before 20.12 2018. Thus there is a delay of 47 days in presenting this appeal. It is respectfully submitted that the delay in presenting the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay is due to reasons

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. I.T.A

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. I.T.A

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. I.T.A

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. I.T.A

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. I.T.A

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. I.T.A

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section