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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 285 days in filing the above appeals. 2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the Assessee is an Autonomous Body which is established under 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (XXVII of 1976) and Rules made thereunder carrying Planned Development of areas as defined and designed by the Government

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 285 days in filing the above appeals. 2.1 The brief facts of the case is that the Assessee is an Autonomous Body which is established under 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (XXVII of 1976) and Rules made thereunder carrying Planned Development of areas as defined and designed by the Government

ITO, WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HEMANT HIRALAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

condoning the delay. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual drawing salary from partnership firm viz. Monarch Infra Venture and showing income from capital gain and income from other sources. For the Asst.Year 2014-15, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.3.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,21,880/-. The return