HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

REAL CARGO MUMBAI,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

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

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act 1961. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , reads as under:- “1. The order passed u/s 250 passed on 25.09.2023 by NFAC, Delhi for AY 2010-11 upholding the disallowance of freight expenses

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 11. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the unutilized MODVAT credit of Rs. 20,30,909/- as income of the assessee. 12. The facts in brief are that

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. CIT,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 11. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the unutilized MODVAT credit of Rs. 20,30,909/- as income of the assessee. 12. The facts in brief are that

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) PREVIOUSLY ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 603 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. We have carefully perused the contents of the affidavit and the submissions made thereon. It is seen

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned as of the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been finally rejected on this preliminary ground of limitation. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137. 5. On the other hand the assessee relied upon the judgment passed

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned as of the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been finally rejected on this preliminary ground of limitation. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137. 5. On the other hand the assessee relied upon the judgment passed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S REDEX PROTECH P LTD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Xi, Ahmedabad Dated 31.12.2001 Passed For The Asstt.Year 1995- 96. On Receipt Of Notice In The Revenue’S Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Bearing No.28/Ahd/2002. Ita No.462/Ahd/2002 & Others With Co (Special Bench)

254(4), there should be a valid appeal following all the requirements of section 249 of the Income Tax Act. Elaborating his arguments, he submitted that suppose an appeal was not filed within time limit provided in the Act, then unless delay ITA No.462/Ahd/2002 & Others with CO (Special Bench) 6 in filing the appeal is being condoned

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 3. Now on merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in providing manpower to different clients. The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-20 under section 139(1) electronically declaring the total income of " 56,640/-. The return