ARCHANABEN RAJENDRASINGH DEVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated\nabove

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh\nDeval\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nTDS Ward-1,\nAhmedabad – 380 014\n42, Tirth Bhumi Co-op. Society\nNear Dhara Soap Factory\nNikol Gam Road,\nNikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AHZPD 2745 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by :\nShri Jaimin Sha

section 201(1) of the Act and\nas such the demand raised of Rs.1,00,907/- requires to be deleted.\n7. That the assesse has not made any default U/s 201(1) / 201(1A), however the\npenalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271C of the act, requires to be dropped.\n8. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

section 12\nof the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public\ncharitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for\navailing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of\nlimitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary\npowers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned

THE ACIT (INT. TAXA), VADODARA vs. M/S. ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoning the delay. It is pertinent to note that Section 201(3) specifies the time limit in respect of TDS for residents only. The CIT(A) observed that the order dated 25.03.2019 is beyond four years in light of Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (Supra). The decision of Jurisdictional High Court referred

MANJUDEVI R. SOMANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCXOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), NOW WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condonation of the delay. However, the ld. DR left the issue at the discretion of the Bench. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At this juncture, we find important to reproduce the relevant extract of provision of Section 249 of the Act which reads as under: “(2) The appeal shall be presented

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , VADODARA.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt.Cit (International Allscripts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Taxation),Vadodara. Vs 10Th & 11Th Floor, Atlantis Heights Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Road Vadodara. Pan : Aaccm 2641 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rajpat Soni, Ar : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

2 decision in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation 305 ITR 137 (Del.), which is relevant only for the cases pertaining to the period prior to 01.04.2010, when no limitation was in existence for proceedings w/s. 201 of the I. T. Act? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring

STATE BANK OF INDIA (BHILAD BRANCH),,VALSAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

condoned the delay in filing these appeals. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the assessee had a strong prima facie case and the matter was said to be covered by a series of orders passed by the Tribunal. The explanation of the assessee was justified, reasonable and bonafide. In these circumstances, I deem

STATE BANK OF INDIA (SARIGAM BRANCH),,VALSAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

condoned the delay in filing these appeals. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that the assessee had a strong prima facie case and the matter was said to be covered by a series of orders passed by the Tribunal. The explanation of the assessee was justified, reasonable and bonafide. In these circumstances, I deem

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

condonation of delay and affidavit of Director of assessee-company, Welspoun Projects Ltd. (formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Ltd. Shri Sandeep Garg have been filed. In his affidavit, the deponent has deposed as under: “I, am director of Welspun Projects Ltd, (formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Ltd.) which is engaqed in the business of developing infrastructure facilities like

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

condonation of delay and affidavit of Director of assessee-company, Welspoun Projects Ltd. (formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Ltd. Shri Sandeep Garg have been filed. In his affidavit, the deponent has deposed as under: “I, am director of Welspun Projects Ltd, (formerly known as MSK Projects (India) Ltd.) which is engaqed in the business of developing infrastructure facilities like

MAHENDRA J. CHALISHAZAR- HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsl.

201-11 Ketan M. The ITO Chalishazar HUF Ward-5(3)(1) (Address as above) Ahmedabad PAN:AADHK3422M 3. 2136/Ahd/2018 2010-11 Mahendra J The ITO Chalishazar HUF Ward-5(3)(1) (Address as above) Ahmedabad PAN:AADHM9205L Assessee(s) by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR 07/06/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा

KETAN M CHALISHAZAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsl.

201-11 Ketan M. The ITO Chalishazar HUF Ward-5(3)(1) (Address as above) Ahmedabad PAN:AADHK3422M 3. 2136/Ahd/2018 2010-11 Mahendra J The ITO Chalishazar HUF Ward-5(3)(1) (Address as above) Ahmedabad PAN:AADHM9205L Assessee(s) by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR 07/06/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा

KETAN M CHALISHAZAR-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsl.

201-11 Ketan M. The ITO Chalishazar HUF Ward-5(3)(1) (Address as above) Ahmedabad PAN:AADHK3422M 3. 2136/Ahd/2018 2010-11 Mahendra J The ITO Chalishazar HUF Ward-5(3)(1) (Address as above) Ahmedabad PAN:AADHM9205L Assessee(s) by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR 07/06/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone delays in the filing of statutory forms like Form No. 15G/H, since such powers lie only with the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, finding the AO’s action in line with the provisions of law, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed under section 201

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's decision in levying penalty of Rs.166,50,03,312/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's decision in levying penalty of Rs.166,50,03,312/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's decision in levying penalty of Rs.166,50,03,312/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's decision in levying penalty of Rs.166,50,03,312/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's decision in levying penalty of Rs.166,50,03,312/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac