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

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

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

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

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

234 Τaxman 51 (Calcutta) in order to submit that if there was\nno disallowance or addition made by the Assessing Officer in the\nincome as disclosed in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the\nAct, no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.\n12. Insofar as ITA No. 5277/Mum/2024 (assessment year

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

CHANDANBEN GAURISHANKAR JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 3(3)(1), VEJALPUR,AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. This is in reference to the order passed u/s 250 by CIT(A), wherein

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.

condoned. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee before us stated that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kewal Niraj Hutheesing vs. ITO in ITA No. 559/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20, the copy whereof is annexed with paper book

THIRD EYE ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(15) NOW WARD- 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

234(d).” 3. The assessee company filed its return of income for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 on 26.09.2012 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed accepting the Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 of 5 returned income. The PCIT passed order under Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay of 01 day in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. We shall first take up the Assessee’s and Department’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, and our observations made for these years shall apply to the balance years as well, wherever applicable. We shall first take up the assessee’s appeal