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 on the authorities concerned. 32

MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

condone the delay of 1569 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 9. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting deduction under section 80HHC

RADHE FINSEC INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 2490 days in filing the above appeal arising out of the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 506/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Radhe Finsec India Ltd. vs. ITO 2. Brief facts

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)

32,98,068/- because the audit report for trust for AY 2018- 19 was not filed on or before the date of filing of the Income-tax return for AY 2018-19. The case of the assessee is that audit report in case of Shiksha Foundation for AY 2018-19 was duly signed by auditor as on 21st September

M/S. K.B.MEHTA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2010/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. K.B. Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 509, Milestone, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. T.V. Tower, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Asstt. Year 2012-13 4 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance ofinterest expenses of Rs.3,11,0107-u/s.36

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

delay. Since we have rejected the assessee's condonation application, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. ITA Nos.1034to1036 Ahd 13, ITSS 153to155 Ahd 14 & ITSS 36to39 of 16- Assessee- Raghubhai B. Vaghela AY : 2004-0, 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 7 – 12. In the result, appeals

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

delay. Since we have rejected the assessee's condonation application, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. ITA Nos.1034to1036 Ahd 13, ITSS 153to155 Ahd 14 & ITSS 36to39 of 16- Assessee- Raghubhai B. Vaghela AY : 2004-0, 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 7 – 12. In the result, appeals

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

delay. Since we have rejected the assessee's condonation application, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. ITA Nos.1034to1036 Ahd 13, ITSS 153to155 Ahd 14 & ITSS 36to39 of 16- Assessee- Raghubhai B. Vaghela AY : 2004-0, 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 7 – 12. In the result, appeals

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

32. It is also a settled principle that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, as held in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra). Denial of condonation in the present case would result in depriving the assessee of an opportunity to contest the matter

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

32. It is also a settled principle that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, as held in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra). Denial of condonation in the present case would result in depriving the assessee of an opportunity to contest the matter

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

32. It is also a settled principle that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, as held in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra). Denial of condonation in the present case would result in depriving the assessee of an opportunity to contest the matter

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

32. It is also a settled principle that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, as held in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra). Denial of condonation in the present case would result in depriving the assessee of an opportunity to contest the matter

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

condoned in both the appeals, and whether they are required to be remitted back for adjudication on merit. 3. The facts on all vital points are common therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from quantum appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company at the relevant time was manufacturing copper tubes

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

condoned in both the appeals, and whether they are required to be remitted back for adjudication on merit. 3. The facts on all vital points are common therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from quantum appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company at the relevant time was manufacturing copper tubes

BHARGAVKUMAR PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

delay of 71 days is condoned .Order was pronounced in the Open Court. 7.1 Thereafter, both the appeals were proceeded to be adjudicated. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue in the present appeal related to the assessee being denied the benefit of paying taxes under the new regime as provided under section 115BCA

ARUN GOPILAL SAMNANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2023-24 Arun Gopilal Samnani The I.T.O., Ward-5(3)(1) 7, Bank Of Baroda Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. P.T. College Paldi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aywps 2887 D Assessment Year :2023-24 Bhargavkumarparsottambh The I.T.O., Ward-1(2)(1) Ai Patel-Huf Vs Ahmedabad. B/301, 3Rd Floor Shree Saran-2 Opp: Anand Niketan School Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380089. Pan : Aalhb 2685 R

delay of 71 days is condoned .Order was pronounced in the Open Court. 7.1 Thereafter, both the appeals were proceeded to be adjudicated. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the short issue in the present appeal related to the assessee being denied the benefit of paying taxes under the new regime as provided under section 115BCA

SHRI GAURAV VINODBHAI MITRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay, 4 then the issue on merit were required to be relegated to the file of the Revenue authorities; but in order to appraise ourselves about the genuine hardship of the assessee, and how Revenue authorities have exercised their power for assessing income, we deem it appropriate to take brief note of the explanation of the assessee

AADIJATI VIKAS PRAGATI MAHAMANDAL,VYARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. As both appeals involve common facts and issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 32