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)

47 years, Son of Gulabsingh Rore, residing at Vraj Avenue, Above US Pizza, Swastik Char Rasia, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009, Gujarat, India hereby solemnly swear and affirm the following statements before the Notary Public: Initial Compliance: I was subjected to original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for the Assessment Year

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

v) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition relying upon the order dated 23.06.2020 passed u/s. 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act by CIT(E), Ahmadabad condoning the delay in filing Form 10 ignoring the fact that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11

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

v) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition relying upon the order dated 23.06.2020 passed u/s. 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act by CIT(E), Ahmadabad condoning the delay in filing Form 10 ignoring the fact that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11

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

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

THE ORCHID HEIGHTS CO.OP HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Orchid Heights Co-Op Income Tax Officer, Vs. Housing Service Society Ward-3(3)(5), Limited, Ahmedabad. Applewood Township, Nr. Shantipura Circle, Ahmedabad-382210.. [Pan :Aagat8437 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M J Ranpura, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The ground of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2

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

v. ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC) dismissed the SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation from such entity or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page

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

v. ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC) dismissed the SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation from such entity or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page

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

v. ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC) dismissed the SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation from such entity or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page

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

v. ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC) dismissed the SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation from such entity or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page

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

v. ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC) dismissed the SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation from such entity or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page

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

v. ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC) dismissed the SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation from such entity or produce its owner in person for cross-examination and also failed to I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page

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

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

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

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