MAHEMUDKHAN AJAMUDDIN RANA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

207 days in filing the appeal. The delay is hereby condoned. 7. On going through the submissions of the Counsel for the assessee and the Ld. DR, we note that the present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whereby the assessee’s appeal was dismissed on account of non-appearance. The assessment

THAKKAR MUKESHBHAI KESHAVLAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal Huf Ito, Ward-3(3)(5) 456, 45Th Floor, Titanium City Centre Vs. Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Nr.Sachin Tower Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaht 1750 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2025

condoning the delay. Application for Admission of Additional Evidence 11. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee moved an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence in the form of various documents which, according to the assessee, could not be submitted either during the assessment proceedings or before

NIRA vs. INH KISHORESINH GEHLOT,INDIAVS.CPC, BANGALORE (PRESENT JURISDICTION -INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD), GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh Cpc बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajtpg6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. Dr 01/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai (‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Intimation Order Dated 20.03.2020 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent

SOCIETY FOR CREATION OF OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH PROFICIENCY IN ENGLISH (SCOPE),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal on merits. The CIT(Appeals) held that procedural compliance is mandatory, and filing the return in the prescribed form is not a mere technicality but a legal requirement. Since the return was filed in Form ITR-5 instead of ITR-7, the exemption claim was considered invalid. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI DEEPAK BUDHARMAL VASWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

M/S. VENUS INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR VASWANI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOK SUNDERDAS VASWANI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

SHRI RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petition. 19.13 In Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. , [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), on which reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioners, the Delhi High Court has held thus: "28.4 The Supreme Court also agreed with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Patel (supra

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore