SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

condoned in both the appeals, and whether they are required to be remitted back for adjudication on merit. 3. The facts on all vital points are common therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from quantum appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company at the relevant time was manufacturing copper tubes

ALPESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI RABARI,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari Ito, Ward-1 3, Rabarivas, Palaj Vs. Mehsana. Mehsana 384 410 Gujarat. Pan : Bwgpr 0788 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025

condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act, supported by an affidavit. The assessee explained that he was a graduate in commerce with Gujarati as the medium of instruction and was working as a Business Correspondent in a rural area. He asserted that he did not possess in-depth knowledge or understanding of income-tax laws or procedural

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

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

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 SALESTAX EMPLOYEES CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16-10-2023 In Din

condone the delay of 111 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with I.T.A No. 612/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. 5 The Sales Tax Employees Co.Op. Credit Society ltd. v. ACIT law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Collector of Land Acquisition, Court in the case of Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji

PRADEEP KUMAR JOSHI (L/H SMT. SANGEETA P. JOSHI) ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 INT.TAXA., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay is condoned. 3. We have heard the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 4. The assessee is a non-resident Indian and shown income from other source being interest from REC Bonds and savings bank interest. He has also shown dividend income and salary earned from Oil Support Services, Pradeep Kumar Joshi

M/S. AARTEE ROADWAYS,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2002-03. 2. The appeal is time barred by 23 days, but the assessee has moved a petition seeking condonation of delay, on which we have heard both the parties. We have noted that the assessee was traversing through a difficult financial period and facing recovery suits

DASRATHSINH GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-6, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

226 (Bombay). Since the assessee is already before the CIT(A), order under Section 263 of the Act itself is bad in law and the powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with that of Assessing Officer and consequently the CIT(A) applied Section 115BBE and gave direction to the Assessing Officer accordingly. Consequently, both the PCIT

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 226 & 227/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. Surat Urvan Development Authority

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A Nos. 226 & 227/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. Surat Urvan Development Authority

SHREE MODH CHATURVEDI RAJYAGOR SAMVAY GNATI MANDAL AMDAWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

condoned.” 3. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation by 3276 days. The ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted the reasons for the delay in the shape of a chart, which for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced

SHREE MODH CHATURVEDI RAJYAGOR SAMVAY GNATI MANDAL AMDAWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

condoned.” 3. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation by 3276 days. The ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted the reasons for the delay in the shape of a chart, which for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced