BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that

SHRI PINAKIN KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

230/- against the actual sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/-. The assessees have come up before the Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section

SHRI DILIP KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

230/- against the actual sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/-. The assessees have come up before the Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section

SHRI MANISH KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

230/- against the actual sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/-. The assessees have come up before the Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section

SHRI PINAKIN KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

230/- against the actual sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/-. The assessees have come up before the Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section

SHRI DILIP KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

230/- against the actual sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/-. The assessees have come up before the Tribunal with prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

230 /AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 44/AHD/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal AF-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara. PAN: ABTPJ2407L (अपीलार्/Appellant ( प्यर्/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Revenue by : Shri H Phani Raju

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

230 /AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 44/AHD/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal AF-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara. PAN: ABTPJ2407L (अपीलार्/Appellant ( प्यर्/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hemant Suthar, AR Revenue by : Shri H Phani Raju

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

230/-under section 10B of the Act and disallowed the balance amount of ₹ 10,78,68,462/-. However, learned CIT (A) was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO by observing that the AO has not established with the documentary evidence that the assessee was engaged/involved in any colourable device as alleged

DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR OPEN UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

230) (vi), absence of Form 10BB, absence of approval, absence of condonation by CBDT, failure to satisfy Rule 2BBB for alternate claim under section 10(23C)(iiab), failure to furnish sanction letter, utilisation certificate, or evidentiary proof of application of grant, the AO correctly added the amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- to the income of the appellant. The explanations

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 ITA Nos. 594 & 595/Ahd/2019 Shri Atul Chandrakant Shah Vs. DCIT

SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed being time barred. 4. Now we take up ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019. As observed in the earlier appeal, it emerges out that the appeal of the assessee was decided on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application on 30.12.2016 ITA Nos. 594 & 595/Ahd/2019 Shri Atul Chandrakant Shah Vs. DCIT

KALYAN JEWELS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Kalyan Jewells P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) 49, Super Mall Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Lal Bungalow, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aacck 4717 B

delay occurred which is prayed to be kindly condoned. 5) On the facts no interest u/s.234-A, 234-B, and 234-D of the Act ought to have been levied.” 5. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company. It has filed its return of income for the Asst.Year 2009-10 on 30.9.2009 declaring income

RAMESHBHAI POPATBHAI CHAUDHARI,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year 2017-18

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963, has come up for construction and interpretation by the Hon’ble apex court as well as Hon’ble High courts who have been unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Collector

DCIT (E) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT COUNCIL OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

condoning the delay in filing Form 10 ignoring the fact that the assessee is not eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act as per the proviso to Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act. 5.1 As regards ground no.6, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3