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

KOSHAMBH CHARITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CPC, BAMGLORE

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

Bench: The National Faceless Appeal Centre .

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2016-17. I.T.A No. 210/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Koshambh Charitable Trust vs. ACIT 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to condone the delay of 676 days in filing

SHRI R V SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.DIT, CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, EXEMP., BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Madhu Silica Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tax, Cpc 147, Gidc, Vartej Bengaluru Bhavnagar 364 060 (Current Jao : Ito (Exempt), Gujarat Bhavnagar Pan: Aaets 0593 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 19/01/2024 Passed By The Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [“Jcit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 17/10/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,48,175/-. The Said Return Was Processed By Cpc Bengaluru U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 03/03/2023 & Income Was Determined At Rs.13,64,912/-. This Was Due To Denial Of Exemption U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Assessee Had Filed An

246A of the Act. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various S, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach

SHREENATH DEVELOPERS,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a builder / developer and for the impugned year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income showing “NIL” income. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason “introduction of large capital during

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

246A. The conclusion of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law. 3. The Ird. CIT(A) has erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

246A. The conclusion of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law. 3. The Ird. CIT(A) has erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

delayed return for A.Y. 2011-12 on June 26, 2015, declaring a total income of ₹34,05,800/-. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. A detailed questionnaire was sent on August 3, 2015, but the assessee did not comply. The assessee, who derived IT(SS)A Nos.449 & 44/Ahd/2019&2020 & 1562/Ahd/2019 & 270/Ahd/2021 DCIT

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

delayed return for A.Y. 2011-12 on June 26, 2015, declaring a total income of ₹34,05,800/-. Subsequently, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. A detailed questionnaire was sent on August 3, 2015, but the assessee did not comply. The assessee, who derived IT(SS)A Nos.449 & 44/Ahd/2019&2020 & 1562/Ahd/2019 & 270/Ahd/2021 DCIT