BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\n: 19-03-2025\n: 03-04-2025\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nV

5. Thus, it is crystal clear from the above legal proposition that the\ndiscretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based\non facts and circumstances of each case.\n6.6 We also note that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case\nof Vareli textile industry versus CIT reported in 154 Taxman 33 has\nheld as under

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.192-193/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.441-1, Sector-22, Vs. Ward-1, Nr. Police Chowkey, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar.

5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

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

5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

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

5- SCC 157].)” (b) Ajay Dabre v. Pyare Ram 2023 SCC Online SC 92: ‘13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows: "15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

TEJAS KARSHANBHAI DARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

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

5– that the CPC as well as the Assessing Officer had upheld the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. However, we also observe that Ld. CIT(E), Ahmedabad vide letter dated 27.06.2022 passed an order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, condoning the delay in filing of Form 10B. Such grant of approval condoning

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

condone the delay of 262 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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)

section 17 was an appeal against the original order of assessment under the Act, which was passed about 20 years ago, as it was evident that the appeal was against an order of rejection of relief by the I.T.A No. 506/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 7 Radhe Finsec India Ltd. vs. ITO assessing authority. Thus, though the Tribunal

CAT COSMETICS AND HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 17 was an appeal against the original order of assessment under the Act, which was passed about 20 years ago, as it was evident that the appeal was against an order of rejection of relief by the I.T.A No. 1189/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 6 CAT Cosmetics And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO assessing authority. Thus, though

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)

5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 33 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2008-09 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 10. JCIT v. Sewa Education Trust - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue

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)

5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 33 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2008-09 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 10. JCIT v. Sewa Education Trust - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue

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)

5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 33 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2008-09 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 10. JCIT v. Sewa Education Trust - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue

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)

5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 33 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2008-09 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 10. JCIT v. Sewa Education Trust - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue

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)

5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 33 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2008-09 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 10. JCIT v. Sewa Education Trust - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue

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)

5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 33 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2008-09 1.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 10. JCIT v. Sewa Education Trust - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

5. Admittedly, no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in one of the S.L.Ps, namely, S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.32770 of 2022, delay has been condoned and in other S.L.Ps, notice has been issued to the respondents in the condone delay petitions. Since the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the very same issue

PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Final Appeal.

section 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be I.T.A No. 448/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 4 Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea

SINHUJ DUDH UTPADAK SAH MAN LIMITED,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 80P of the Act, it was only the profit element embedded in the receipt of the assessee, that was liable to tax. He contended that on account of non- condonation of the delay grave prejudice had been caused to the assessee resulting in its entire receipts being subjected to tax that too without being heard and being a small