PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Final Appeal.

condone delay: “The expression ‘sufficient cause or reason’ as provided in sub- section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income-tax Act such as sections 274, 273

THE ANKLAV MERCANTILE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ANAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning delay in fulfilling appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating addition made U/s 68 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.8,17,68,248/- as unexplained cash credit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts not adjudicating addition made

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)

273, no penalty shall be Imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” 17. On perusal of the above provisions it is clear that no penalty would be leviable if the person concerned proves that

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)

273, no penalty shall be Imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” 17. On perusal of the above provisions it is clear that no penalty would be leviable if the person concerned proves that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. MISSION PHARMA LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay is condoned. 3. At the very outset of the proceeding the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that in the event the Ground No. 3 relating to deleting of adjustment based on the terms of the Advance Price Agreement entered by the appellant with the CBDT is decided in favour of the assessee the first

SHRI MOHMED SHAKIL MOHMED SHAFI MUTWALLI,,HIMATNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-3., HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone delay of 26th days in filing this appeal. 5. The fact in brief is that original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized in the case of the assessee on 26th March, 2014 determining total income at Rs. 9,15,737/-. Subsequently, ld. CIT has passed order u/s. 263 and directed the Assessing Officer to make afresh

SARJAN FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BENGLURU

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16

273 dated 03.06.1980. However, the CIT(A) rejected all the contentions holding that there was no mistake in the initiation processed by CPC and the delay in filing Form – 10 could be raised before the concern CIT(Exemption). The Ld. AR further submitted that vide order dated 02.09.2022, the CIT(Exemption) has condone the delay in filing Form

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone such delay in preferring appeal before us. Both appeals are, therefore admitted. ITA No. 318/Ahd/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17):- 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose