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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD (UNDER LIQUIDATION),MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

delay in filing appeal before NFAC may be condoned. 4. Ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that appellant has judgment in his own case being appeal no. ITA No.2251/Ahd/2015 DATED 30/09/2021 against which no appeal has been filed before High Court and therefore said appellate order dated 30/09/2021 has become final and binding therefore NFAC has ought to have given

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

delay in filing appeal before NFAC may be condoned. 4. Ld. NFAC has failed to appreciate that appellant has judgment in his own case being appeal no. ITA No.2251/Ahd/2015 DATED 30/09/2021 against which no appeal has been filed before High Court and therefore said appellate order dated 30/09/2021 has become final and binding therefore NFAC has ought to have given

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

32 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 5. The ITO Ward (Exemption), Vadodara v. Shri Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra - ITA No. 410/Ahd/2022 The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

32 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 5. The ITO Ward (Exemption), Vadodara v. Shri Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra - ITA No. 410/Ahd/2022 The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

32 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 5. The ITO Ward (Exemption), Vadodara v. Shri Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra - ITA No. 410/Ahd/2022 The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

32 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 5. The ITO Ward (Exemption), Vadodara v. Shri Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra - ITA No. 410/Ahd/2022 The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filing of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence