RADHE FINSEC INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 2490 days in filing the above appeal arising out of the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 506/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Radhe Finsec India Ltd. vs. ITO 2. Brief facts

THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

234B of the Act. 5. Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 1226 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. There was condonation petition filed by the assessee dated 12th

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

234B of the Act, on the last assessed income. 5. That the appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and delete any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3)/254

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay should have been condoned and learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated appeal on merits and should not have dismissed the same in limine. 2. (a) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- comprising of following items in the assessment order: (i) Unexplained cash deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay should have been condoned and learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated appeal on merits and should not have dismissed the same in limine. 2. (a) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- comprising of following items in the assessment order: (i) Unexplained cash deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay should have been condoned and learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated appeal on merits and should not have dismissed the same in limine. 2. (a) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- comprising of following items in the assessment order: (i) Unexplained cash deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay should have been condoned and learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated appeal on merits and should not have dismissed the same in limine. 2. (a) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- comprising of following items in the assessment order: (i) Unexplained cash deposits

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay should have been condoned and learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated appeal on merits and should not have dismissed the same in limine. 2. (a) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- comprising of following items in the assessment order: (i) Unexplained cash deposits

MANSHA TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

234B & 234C of the Act is unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 3. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor on account of negligence but was occasioned due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

234B and 234C is unjustified. Initiation of penalty u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 9. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3.The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10, is barred by limitation by 1484 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to 3 condone

SNEHA PAWAN AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "253(3)", "250", "69A", "115BBE", "271(1)(b)", "271(1)(c)", "234B", "148", "142(1)", "234A", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act as applicable after giving credit for taxes paid by the assessee. Relevant to mention that before the DPO, Panel-2, Mumbai, the assessee on 12.02.2021 by way of additional ground challenged the validity of the TPO’s order being barred by limitation. The case of the assessee before the Hon’ble DRP is this

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

234B and 234C under the facts & in law in the circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend, delete or add any grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to denial of deduction to profits earned by the assessee under Section 80LA

SNEHA PAWAN AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "250", "253(3)", "253(5)", "148", "142(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "271(1)(b)", "271(1)(c)", "234B", "234A", "234C" ], "issues": "Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are to be admitted for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay

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

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD, VADODARA. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 EXEMPTIONS, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1187/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-10 Gujarat Technological University, The Dcit, Nr. Vishwakarma Govt. Engg. College, बनाम/ Circle-1, V/S. Near Visar Three Roads, Exemptions, Chandkheda Society Area S.O, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad-382424. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaalg1109L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 14.03.2025, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019–20, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under

delay in filing the Income Tax Return for AY 2019-20 had already been condoned by the competent authority, a fact which directly impacts the eligibility of the Appellant for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal related to exemption under section

SINGULARITY LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-2020 Singularity Labs Private Limited Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) A Wing, Unit No.105 Vs. Ahmedabad- 380 Building No.1-A, Aqualine Properties 015. Pvt.Ltd. It/Ites Sez, Koba Gandhinagar – 382 421 Pan : Aaycs 8711 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

delay in filing such reports rests only with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, or Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and not with the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The assessee was advised to approach the competent authority for condonation. The grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234B

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B, and 234C was held to be consequential and mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble ITA Nos. 473&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 4– Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in Motorola Inc. v. DCIT

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B, and 234C was held to be consequential and mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble ITA Nos. 473&474/Ahd/2025 Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Years–2011-12 & 2012-13 - 4– Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in Motorola Inc. v. DCIT