AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

31,527/- for interest on payment of TDS u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 17,790/- for penalty expenses? 6. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1

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

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

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 86 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Brief Facts of the Case 4. The assessee company, Atul Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing dyes, specialty chemicals, agrochemicals, bulk drugs, commodity chemicals, and power generation. For AY 2017–18, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2017 declaring total income

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)

31-03-2022 for repayment of loans by cash mode exceeding Rs.20,000/-. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty orders, assessee society filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty invoking Section 273B of the Act by passing detailed orders as reasonable cause was made out by the assessee society wherein he considered the Jurisdictional High Court Judgment

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)

31-03-2022 for repayment of loans by cash mode exceeding Rs.20,000/-. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty orders, assessee society filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty invoking Section 273B of the Act by passing detailed orders as reasonable cause was made out by the assessee society wherein he considered the Jurisdictional High Court Judgment

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)

1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after

SHREE AATH PARAGANA GURJAR PRAJAPATI SAMAJ TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Aath Paragana Gurjar Prajapati The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Trust Vs. Vejalpur Prajapati Bhavan Chatrala Ahmedabad. Sola Railway Over Bridge Naittar Chede, Sola Ghatlodia. Pan : Abfts 9086 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

delay of 183 days is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The assessee trust had earlier been granted provisional registration under section 12AB by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, vide order dated 07.03.2023 issued in Form No. 10AC, for the assessment years 2023–24 to 2025–26. Thereafter, in accordance

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 3. Now on merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in providing manpower to different clients. The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-20 under section 139(1) electronically declaring the total income of " 56,640/-. The return

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31,143/- as income from other sources. Thus, the Assessing Officer made total additions of Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- and the same were subjected to tax, including application of section 115BBE of the Act, wherever applicable. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessment order was admittedly served