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)

1) of Section 92CA of the Act. The TPO after considering the documents submitted by the assessee is to pass an order under Section 92CA (3) of the Act. As per Section 92CA (3A), the order has to be passed before the expiry of 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation under Section 153 expires

AXIOMATIC ITECH PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 35(1)(ii) and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Application for condonation of delay

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

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

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

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

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

delay of 48 days which is explained and condoned. The said Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust was earlier approved under Section 35(1

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

section 12AA of the I.T. Act. 3. The solitary issue in this appeal is late filing of Form 10B thereby exemption u/s. 11 of the Act was disallowed while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC. The assessee filed condonation of delay of 35

BRIGHTECH VALVES & CONTROLS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Appeal Centre vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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.

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’s declaration. • The income was computed under

GROW FOUNDATION GANDHINAGAR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 9

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

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

35,119/-be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Act merely relying on the order passed by the ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 14– learned Assessing Officer