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

delay Condonation in filing appeal (1) The appellant MSK Project (India) JV Limited now merged with Madhav Infra Projects Ltd filed return of income for A Y 2005/06 declaring loss of Rs. 48, 82, 805/- that was accepted & assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. (2) Subsequently in order u/s 263 passed on 25.02.2010 ld. CIT holding order

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 80(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) should be condoned in the interest of justice. For that we rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

section 12\nof the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public\ncharitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condition for\navailing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of\nlimitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary\npowers to condone such delay

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

delay in filing said form was rightly condoned by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal. 11. In the case of Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 922 (Gujarat)[30-04- 2025], the assessee -trust, registered under provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, filed its return of income claiming exemption under section

NAVI MASJID MAHFILE HUSEN MADRASE TARKKI ISLAM HUSAINI TEKRI,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

30 October 2018 for the registration under section 12 AA of the Act was rejected by the learned CIT exemption on the reasoning that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details in response to the query raised through email dated 5 March 2019 and 29 March 2019. But the fact is that the assessee has never received the emails

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

30 days of receipt of said orders. However, due to reason mentioned in para 1 above, I could not file the appeals before the due dates 4. However, the appeal has been fled on Actual Date of Filling resulting in a delay of days The delay occurred due to the masons mentioned in para 1 above. 5. The delay

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

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

30 days of receipt of said orders. However, due to reason mentioned in para 1 above, I could not file the appeals before the due dates 4. However, the appeal has been fled on Actual Date of Filling resulting in a delay of days The delay occurred due to the masons mentioned in para 1 above. 5. The delay

SHIKSHA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

condone delay in filing Form No. 10Baudit report, however same was rejected. The High Court held that since assessee was a public charitable trust for past 30 years and substantially satisfied conditions for availing exemption under section

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

condone the delay of 1442 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 10. The assessee in the 1st and additional ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Asstt. Year 2012-13 7 11. The facts in brief in the present

VARUN KAMALCHAND JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

Section 249(2) of the I.T. Act the appellant should have filed the appeal within 30 days from the date of the service of the order i.e. on 14.12.2018 but the same has been filed on 05.02.2019 with the delay of 53 days . The appellant filed condonation

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

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

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial

GYANDEEP CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU NOW THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

30-03-2022. Provisions of section 12A (1) (b) requiring assessee to furnish audit report has been amended wef 01.04.2020. Requirement of furnishing audit report before the due date prescribed in section. 44AB is made mandatory wef 01.04.2020 i.e. from AY 2020-21. The assessment year under consideration being A yr 2021-22, amended provisions of section

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

30 return was days from not filed the date of within the receipt of specified the notice. period. Notice 19/11/20 To obtain Submit Filed return under 21 detailed details of belatedly on Section information business 25-08-2021, 142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original