WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

condone the delay in filing he appeal. 9. Now we proceed to decide both the appeals on merit. In ground no.1, the assessee is challenging validity of re-assessment orders passed under section 147 of the Act. The assessee has filed statement facts in ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 the Asstt.year 2005-06, which is running into 35 pages

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA (BHILAD 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

AIRONA TILES LIMITED,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE HIMATNAGAR PRESENTLY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF. - Rs.10,100/- under Section 43B of the Act on account of Disallowance of professional tax. - Rs.9,640/- relating to (Prior period expenses) disallowed as they pertained to an earlier year. - Rs.65,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act being cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- in a day. - Rs.12,80,000/- under Section

ADITYA PROHOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A No. 1162/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Aditya Prohouse Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 234 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained that

HARDE vs. INGH P. CHUDASAMA PROP. BHAVANI TRANSPORT,AHMEDABADVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

section 144 of the Income tax Act. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 09.10.2019 was issued which was replied by the assessee dated 03.12.2019 and 24.10.2019. After taking cognizance of the same the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.44,07,549/- u/s.69A of the Act being the unexplained money. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT observed that since the assessment was made u/s.144

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

MR. HASMUKHLAL MAVJIBHAI THAKKAR( PROP. OF M/S. NAVKAR POTEINS),DEESA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD-2, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

234 may kindly be reduced/deleted. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings may kindly be directed to be dropped. 10. Stay against recovery of demand may please be granted. 11. Delay caused in filing the appeal may please be condoned.” 3. Return of income was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,29,670/-. The said return was processed under Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and now take up the appeal for adjudication. 10. Shri Soumitra Choudhary Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the TDS certificate was received by the Assessee from China only in September 2009, hence it was not possible for the Assessee to claim tax credit

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay of 32 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned and now take up the appeal for adjudication. 10. Shri Soumitra Choudhary Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the TDS certificate was received by the Assessee from China only in September 2009, hence it was not possible for the Assessee to claim tax credit

M/S. RATNAVEER STAINLESS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 1074 days is condoned. 6. Now coming to the merits of the case, the facts are that the assessee filed return of income on 26.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,52,38,160/- . The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued on 27.09.2011. The assessee is engaged

JAINISH BINITKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

234 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant is filing an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. 2. The appellant has filed the statement of facts and grounds of appeal in detail with supporting evidences with page no. 35 before the Hon. CIT(A) with form No. 35 at the appeal

JAINISH BINITKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

234 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant is filing an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. 2. The appellant has filed the statement of facts and grounds of appeal in detail with supporting evidences with page no. 35 before the Hon. CIT(A) with form No. 35 at the appeal

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

delay of 672 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from Salary, House Property, Capital Gain and Other sources. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its belated Return of Income u/s. 139(1) on 26.03.2014 declaring total income

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. 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. 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