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?

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 and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 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

ii) 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 hearing the parties. (iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

ii) 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 hearing the parties. (iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

KREATE KONNECT E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Kcreate Konnect E Solutions Dy. Cit, Cir.1(1)(1) Private Limited Vs. Vadodara. 291M 2Bd Floor, Green Villa-11 B/H. Abs Tower Old Padra Road Vadodara Pan : Aagck 1493 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.09.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2020– 21, Whereby The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 18.12.2021 Was Dismissed.

32(1)(iia), deductions under sections 10AA, 35(1)(ii), etc., thereby complying with the conditions of sub-section (2) of section 115BAA. • In the tax audit report (Form No. 3CD), specifically under Clause 8(a), the auditor disclosed that the assessee has opted to be taxed under section 115BAA. This amounts to third-party statutory attestation of the assessee

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

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)

ii) "Co-operative bank" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 (10 of 1949). 5.1.2 In the instant case, the appellant cannot be treated as co-operative bank. On a reading of section 3 read with section 56 of banking Regulation Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot

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)

ii) "Co-operative bank" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 (10 of 1949). 5.1.2 In the instant case, the appellant cannot be treated as co-operative bank. On a reading of section 3 read with section 56 of banking Regulation Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot

PARAG DAVE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

1), Ahmedabad vs Armee Infotech 32. The case of the Revenue in the Asstt. Year 2014-15 is that the assessee failed to prove, whether ultimately, the donees have used these monies? The AO has devoted a lot of energy in conducting such inquiry as to how these monies have been incurred by the recipients. To our mind, the authorities