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

SHRI UMESHKUMAR HARILALA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

delay is condoned. 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that TCS is not applicable on the sale of scrap as the assessee is not in the manufacturing activity and act as trader. AS per Section 206C

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

condone the delay and proceed to take up the matter on merits. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. The period of delay in question is prior to 1st June

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

206C to the person furnishing his return of income; (b) such certificate is produced within a period of two years specified under sub-section (14) of section 155; (ii) the amount of compulsory deposit, if any, claimed to have been made under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 (38 of 1974); (d) where regular books of account

GUJARAT BOROSIL LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

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

206C(6A)/206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2014-15. 2. The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under: “1. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law, being contrary to the provisions of the Act and without considering the written submission of the appellant. 2. The Learned