JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 263 should be kept in Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– abeyance, and sought adjournments stating that he had changed his tax consultant. 7. While adjudicating the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) first noted that the appeal itself had been filed with a marginal delay of about five days but condoned

MSK PROJECT (INDIA) JV LTD. CO.(MERGED WITH MADHAV INFRA PROJECT LTD),VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.” 8 MSK Project (I) Jv Ltd Vs. ACIT

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

condone the delay of 262 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal. The said application is supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Ms. Dimple Arvindbhai Modi, Director of the assessee-company, explaining the reasons for the delay. 4. On perusal of the application and the affidavit, it is noticed that the impugned order under section 263

TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

263 of the Act. Therefore, noting that there is no negligence or laxity attributable to the assessee for the delay in filing appeal, and to sub- serve the ends of justice we find that it is a fit case for condoning the delay of 262 days in the present appeal. The impugned delay in filing the present appeal is accordingly

DASRATHSINH GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-6, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

delay is condoned. As regards to invoking of Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT has not pointed out the aspect

TEXRAJ REALTY PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” in short]. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 25 days on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the said delay was due to the complete lockdown declared

BALARAM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

section 263 against the scrutiny order passed by the A.O. after examining in detail the issue of receipt of Rs.3.70 Crore not shown as income for A.Y. 2018-19 as it did not accrue being provisional book entry duly disclosed in the return of income filed and audited accounts. 3. He has erred in law and facts in not appreciating

NADIAD TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAKONI DHIRAN & GRAHAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,NADIAD vs. THE PCIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the reason explained by the assessee appears to be genuine and hence the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned

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

delay of 2074 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 34. On merits, the counsel for the assessee submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the assessee could not cause appearance before CIT(Appeals) who passed the order on ex-parte basis. The counsel for the assessee sought an opportunity of hearing

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

delay of 2074 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 34. On merits, the counsel for the assessee submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the assessee could not cause appearance before CIT(Appeals) who passed the order on ex-parte basis. The counsel for the assessee sought an opportunity of hearing

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

delay of 2074 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 34. On merits, the counsel for the assessee submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the assessee could not cause appearance before CIT(Appeals) who passed the order on ex-parte basis. The counsel for the assessee sought an opportunity of hearing

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

delay of 2074 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 34. On merits, the counsel for the assessee submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, the assessee could not cause appearance before CIT(Appeals) who passed the order on ex-parte basis. The counsel for the assessee sought an opportunity of hearing

MINOR HARESH KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD- 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 7. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground number 2 is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting interest till the date of refund is issued. 8. The AO in the present case

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “The Act”), wherein the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay

VINOD NARAYAN JOSHI,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT,-1, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “The Act”), wherein the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay

THIRD EYE ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(15) NOW WARD- 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

263 of the Act by disallowing the deduction under Section 10AA of Rs.1,10,30,619/- claimed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 35 days in filing the present

PRITHVIRAJ SANWATRAJ KANKARIYA (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263 of the Act and thus filed the present appeal. 5. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed condonation