BALARAM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

condonation of delay it is to be ensured that a meritorious case is not thrown out on the grounds of limitation. 4.1. Taking note of this submission of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, he was asked at bar to explain how on merits he had a good case before the Ld.PCIT such that if the appeal is held

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

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

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

SHRI ROHITJI 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

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

210], wherein relying on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ramco International vs. CIT [[2009] 180 Taxman 584] it has been held at Para 4.1 of the order that: “4.1 In view of above discussion, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction

ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JITENDRA SHANABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

210 [PAN – AAUPP 1285 A] (Appellants) (Respondents) Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT DR Assessee by : Shri Rupesh Mehta, A.R. Date of hearing : 31.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection is filed by the assessee against the order dated

M/S. SHARDABEN EDUCATION TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2312/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 M/S. Shardaben Education Trust, Income Tax Officer, Set, Opp. Kailash Dham, Vs. (Exemption) Pethapur, Ward-1, Gandhinagar-382610. Ahmedabad.

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before us and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 6. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act if audit report

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

210 has also taken the same view. On perusal of the above judgments, it emerges that the deeming provisions should be literally followed in the manner expressed therein. 10.9 In the backdrop of the above stated discussion, it is the duty of the AO to prove that the assessee with respect to its eligible business has arranged its transaction with

RUSHABH RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 124 & 72 days in the filing of both the present appeals. The assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay, the same being attributed to uncontroverted fact of the notices of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) as also the order passed being served on the wrong email ID of the assessee. 7. We shall first

RUSHABH RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 124 & 72 days in the filing of both the present appeals. The assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay, the same being attributed to uncontroverted fact of the notices of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) as also the order passed being served on the wrong email ID of the assessee. 7. We shall first

KANCHANBA EDUCATION TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE AC/DCIT. CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

210/-. 4. In appeal before CIT(A), the assessee argued that the failure to file Form 10B on time was due to sufficient cause because the trustee responsible for tax matters was elderly and suffering from ill-health, resulting in delay. It was also contended that Form 10BB had been filed within time, that subsequent filing of Form 10B amounted

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AWAS DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not treating the assessee’s status as AOP. A.Y. 2010-11 3 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee claimed itself a partnership firm