THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to the other side. 3. The case of the assessee is this that the assessee sold an immovable property bearing Plot No. 182/1, 182/2 and 182/3 at Sushrusha Cooperative Housing Society lying and situated at Swagat Park at Thaltej, Ahmedabad for a consideration

SAAKEN ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09

delay in filing both the appeals of the assessee is condoned, and both the appeals are taken up for hearing on merit. 4. Now we proceed to decide both the appeals of the assessee on merit. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding reassessment order under section

SAAKEN ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09

delay in filing both the appeals of the assessee is condoned, and both the appeals are taken up for hearing on merit. 4. Now we proceed to decide both the appeals of the assessee on merit. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding reassessment order under section

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts of the case 4. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in software-related services. In all years under consideration, the assessments were reopened under section 147 based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding substantial cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank accounts

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

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

condone the delay. The order was pronounced in the Open Court and hearing of the appeal is being proceeded with. 6. The facts of the present case are that regular assessment under section 143(3) was framed on the assessee for the impugned year on 24.12.2007 determining total income at Rs.16,20,928/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

condone the delay. The order was pronounced in the Open Court and hearing of the appeal is being proceeded with. 6. The facts of the present case are that regular assessment under section 143(3) was framed on the assessee for the impugned year on 24.12.2007 determining total income at Rs.16,20,928/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee

BHAGWANDAS DETARAM RAIMALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing the order without hearing on merits, such addition is requested to be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.28,65,935/- made on account of understating the cost of project, such addition is requested to be deleted

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoned the delay in filing of appeal. ITO(E) vs. Acharya Shri Vijay Surendra Surishwarji Jain Tatwa Gyan Shala Asst. Year –2018-19 - 3– 5. At the appellate stage before the CIT(A), the assessee placed various evidences on record explaining both the time deposits as well as the interest income. The evidences included detailed bank statements, ledger accounts

VEN SINGH,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, MEHSANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Ven Singh Ito, Ward-3 Rabari Colony Vs Mehsana. Opp: Torrent Pharma Ahmedabad-Mehsana Highway Chhatral 382729 Gujarat. Pan : Bewps 6333 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/11/2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee has been filed late by 8 days. The assessee has submitted that due to some personal circumstances, there was a delay on his part in signing his appeal, which

SHRI ARUN RAMANLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

256/- which consists of Rs.18,718/- being land revenue under Section 43B of Rs.7,89,538/- being PF/ESI late deposited under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act. Against the intimation the assessee filed rectification under Section 154 of the Act and while processing the application under Section 154 the addition of Rs.18,718/- under Section 43B was deleted whereas

FLAVAROMA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

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

1)(b) of the Act on 04-03-2024 however denied final registration for application filed u/s. 80G(5) of the Act as the same was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and there is no power to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10AB by the Ld. CIT(E) thereby rejected the application

M/S. ISCON MEGACITY MEMBERS ASSOCIATION ,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMP. ), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal. In ground No.1, it has pleaded that assessment was passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In ground Nos.2

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

delay of 40 days in filing the appeals is\nsupported by reasonable cause. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the\ndelay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.\nFacts of the case\n4.\nThe assessee is a private limited company engaged in software-related\nservices. In all years under consideration, the assessments were reopened\nunder section