SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section

VIJAYSINGH NANUSINGH RATHORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Vijaysingh Manusingh Rathore The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 130, Kalhar Exotica Vs. Ahmedabad. Science City Road Thaltej, Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 059. Pan : Adkpr 5315 C (Applicant) (Responent)

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”) dated 20.11.2018. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 292

MAHOTJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-admitted

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2010-11 Mahotji Chanduji Thakor208, Ito Ward-3 Rabari Vas Vs Gandhinagar. At & Post. Sughad Gandhinagar. Pan : Ampppt 9107 N

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 8.5.2018 pertaining to Asst.Year 2010-11. 2. Registry of the Tribunal has pointed out that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 292 days. The assessee has filed condonation of delay

SHRI BABUBHAI BHIMAJIBHAI MALI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Babubhai Bhimajibhai The Ito Mali V. Ward-1(2)(1) 120, M.G. Market, Ahmedabad-380015 Shanti Commercial Centre Gujarat Nagar Sheth Ho Vando Gheekanta Ahmedabad – 360 001 Gujarat Pan:Aappm 7611 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda,Sr. Dr

292/- offered Rs. 3,17,610/- as Income from Other Sources. AO had given numerous opportunities to the appellant-assessee. But no satisfactory submission was made by the appellant- assessee. The appellant-assessee claimed that the so called 'Land Development Marketing' income was subject to section 44AD of the Act. 7. After having considered the material on record, I find

THE GUJARAT SALES TAX BAR MEMBERS BENEVOLENT SCHEME,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 The Gujarat Sales Tax Bar Members The Ito, Ward-2 Benevolent Scheme Vs (Exemption) C-4, Bahumalli Building Ahmedabad. Lal Darwaja Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaatt 1717 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

292/-. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2024, primarily on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form No. 10B within the time prescribed under the Act, and thus, the benefit of exemption under section 11 was rightly denied by CPC. 4. Aggrieved by the order

VIKAS CO. OP CREDIT SOC. LTD,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-3, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 5.1 On merits, the issue for consideration before us is whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction on interest earned from Co-Operative Banks u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the observations of the Hon’ble Gujarat

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI CHIMANBHAI JOITRAM PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 591/Ahd/2020 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Years : 2014-15)

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 56,95,814/- on estimated basis after rejecting the books of accounts under Section

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LTD. (FORMERLY AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LTD.),KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT (INT. TAXA.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue contested in the present Assessment Year has already been decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2016-17 being ITA No.1483/Ahd/2019, order dated 24.08.2022. Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 4 of 11 7. The Ld. DR relied upon

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

M/S. RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued