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

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

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head ‘salary’. The assessee filed copy of VAT return as well as Profit & Loss account relating to salary expenses claimed and copy of income tax returns of the two parties. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,60,000/- towards expenditure, addition of Rs.35,045/- as GP addition

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

SURESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1327 & 1328/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Acit Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Patel Vs. 1, Shayona Darshan & Bunglow, Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ghatlodia, Acit, Circle 6(1), Gujarat – 380061 Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp1167A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R B Tank, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

delay in filing the two appeals is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in these appeals: ITA No.1327/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17 “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, has grievously erred in facts and law while passing the order under consideration 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, erred in facts

SURESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1327 & 1328/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Acit Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Patel Vs. 1, Shayona Darshan & Bunglow, Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ghatlodia, Acit, Circle 6(1), Gujarat – 380061 Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp1167A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R B Tank, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

delay in filing the two appeals is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in these appeals: ITA No.1327/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17 “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, has grievously erred in facts and law while passing the order under consideration 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, erred in facts

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

2 3. First we shall take up the appeal in ITA No.1591/Ahd/2012 for Asst.Year 2005-06. 4. At the outset it was noted that the assessee appeal was time barred by 31 days. In this regard an application seeking condonation of delay was filed stating that appellate order was served on the assessee on 20.4.2012 and the appeal before ITAT

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

2 3. First we shall take up the appeal in ITA No.1591/Ahd/2012 for Asst.Year 2005-06. 4. At the outset it was noted that the assessee appeal was time barred by 31 days. In this regard an application seeking condonation of delay was filed stating that appellate order was served on the assessee on 20.4.2012 and the appeal before ITAT

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

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

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

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),(TPO), 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

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. 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

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

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

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)

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10AB by the Ld. CIT(E) thereby rejected the application as non-maintainable. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in similar case of delay in filing the application for Final Registration

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