DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 5 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. section 271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause

DINESHJI PRATAPJI THAKOR,UNJHA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN, GUJARAT, PATAN, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was a delay of 131 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. It is stated that the assessee is residing in remote village having no electronic gadgets and no internet connection

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned by Ld. CIT(A) in his order). The assessee himself has not availed legal remedy available to it within stipulated time frame and hence now cannot take a plea that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed order within reasonable time, when such delay in passing of order was occasioned by the assessee. 53. In the result Ground

SUVAS HITENDRABHAI BAROT,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay in filing the appeal, despite sufficient cause being explained under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there is no delay in filing appeal in view of directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" granting extension

THE KARA DUDH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamblethe Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari The Income Tax Vs. Mandli Ltd. Officer, Kara Kanjipani Ward-1, Godhra Jambughoda Godhra – 389 001 Panchmahal – 389 390

271A and 2718 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal