BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

23 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai199Delhi152Kolkata87Chandigarh77Mumbai57Jaipur56Bangalore53Pune41Hyderabad31Indore30Ahmedabad23Raipur18Lucknow17Cuttack16Surat11Visakhapatnam9Nagpur8Guwahati5Amritsar5Cochin4Rajkot3SC2Patna2Allahabad1Jodhpur1Telangana1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)25Section 143(1)23Section 3516Addition to Income16Disallowance15Section 143(3)11Section 43B11Section 143(2)10Section 36

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 3. Now on merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in providing manpower to different clients. The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-20 under section 139(1) electronically declaring the total income of " 56,640/-. The return

DIVYAPALSINH TEJPALSINH JADEJA,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 2508
Limitation/Time-bar7
Deduction6

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 579/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

condone the delay of 14 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. 3. ITA No. 579/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) is taken as the lead case. The Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. Abhay Intelligence and Security Services and M/s. Divya Gas Agency. For the Asst. Year

DIVYAPALSINH TEJPALSINH JADEJA,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 578/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

condone the delay of 14 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. 3. ITA No. 579/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) is taken as the lead case. The Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. Abhay Intelligence and Security Services and M/s. Divya Gas Agency. For the Asst. Year

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

36(1) (va) of the Act? 2 Aark Inforsoft Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2017-18 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 55,91,349/- on account of difference in receipt between "Form 26AS" and "Profit and Loss account"? 4. Whether

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 375/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the IT. Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. Total tax effect 3,06,887/-” 3. At the outset we note that the appeal is time-barred by 75 days

PENTHAR SURVEILLANCE AND ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the matter of the assessee is restored to the file of Ld

ITA 340/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Or During The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Prashant Srivastav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. I.T.A No. 340/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No. 3 Panther Surveillance and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), which was “dismissed in limine” on the ground that there was a delay of about one year in filing of appeal, and further despite issuance

TANDEM DATA PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kaushal Fofaria, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 4. The brief issue for consideration is the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 4,32,177/- under Section 36(1)(va

YUDO HOT RUNNERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,21,467/- thereby stating that the assessee has evaded tax. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

For Appellant: Shri Aatish Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr DR
Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

1). It has been held that, "The Revenue's case in tune thereof relies on Section 36(va) read with explanation thereto that it is not Section 43B but the former provision which is applicable in such an instance. We find no merit in the Revenue's foregoing stand. We take note of the explanatory memorandum (SMC) ITA No. 500/Ahd/2023

GUJARAT BOROSIL LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

ITA 29/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 05/05/2022
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

condone the delay of 9 days. 4. The only disputed issue in this appeal, as reflected in the relevant grounds of appeal, is the disallowance sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.23,12,880/- on account of late payment of employees' contribution to P.F. and ESIC. The Assessing Officer made total ITA No. 29/Ahd/2022 [Gujarat Borosil

AMITKUMAR S. SOLANKI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GODHRA

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

ITA 456/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 456/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18) Amitkumar S Solanki The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 63, Narayan Green Ward - 2, Godhra Vs. Banglows, Sama Savli Road, Vadodra - 390024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnips7919E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Palak Pavagadhi, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017- 18 Declaring An Income Of Rs.49,44,188/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 20.03.2019 & While Processing The Return An Addition Of Rs.25,99,845/- Was Made In Respect Of Unpaid Employees’ Contribution To Epf/Esi U/S.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of the said Act amounting to Rs.25,99,845.” 4. Shri Palak Pavagadhi, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 131 days in filing this appeal for the reason that the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was not available with the assessee. The same was also not available

M/S. VEEDA CLINICAL RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assesee is dismissed

ITA 1230/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Stating That It Was On Account Of Default Of The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee That The Delay Occured Since He Forgot To Hand Over The Order To The Concerned Advocate For Filing The Appeal After The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)

condoned and the order pronounced in the open court. The hearing in the appeal was thereafter proceeded with. 6. The assessee has effectively raised 5 grounds of appeal as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing employee's contribution towards

AIRONA TILES LIMITED,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE HIMATNAGAR PRESENTLY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1127/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anil N. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF. - Rs.10,100/- under Section 43B of the Act on account of Disallowance of professional tax. - Rs.9,640/- relating to (Prior period expenses) disallowed as they pertained to an earlier year. - Rs.65,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act being cash payment exceeding Rs.20

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

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

36(1) (va) of IT Act, 1961. The appellant may be heard in person before taking any decision in this matter.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of soil testing, building material testing and land survey work as well as non-constructive testing work. The assessee filed return of income on 12-08-2016 declaring total income

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 176/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

delay of 294 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 10.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 13,70,850/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act determining total income

HYDERABAD YADGIRI TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1332/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43A

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 11.10.2018 declaring total loss of Rs.37,84,22,186/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.01.2021 at the returned loss. Subsequently, the case

MAKEVALE ACRYLICS PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ADIT, CPC BENGALURU PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.566/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru बनाम/ 372, 373, 374, 1,2 Sankarda Present Jurisdiction - Bhadarwa Road The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), V/S. At Moxi, Tal.Savli, Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara- 391 780 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcm 2737 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/05/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 13/11/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction The Dcit, Circle-2(1)1A) Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of the Act, without disputing the alternative tax regime claim opted by the assessee. The Assessee accepted the adjustment of Rs.25,583/- and the AO passed an intimation order on 13-11-2022, processing the total income at Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. vs. The ADIT, CPC Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)1a) Asst. Year

AMJAY MEDIMAX INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

ITA 731/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.731/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amjay Medimax India The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 4Th Floor, Medi Max House Ahmedabad - 380 015 Opp.Karnavati Hospital Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 8241 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/02/2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Arose Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 68

36,87,857/- comprising of Radiology Consultancy Charges of Rs.1,37,51,743/-, Transportation charges of Rs.2,41,09,408/-, Claim for Short Material of Rs.47,83,726/- and Travelling Expenses-Foreign of Rs.10,42,980/-holding the same as not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business u/s.37(1) of the Act. 9. The Learned Commissioner

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 891/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

delay was only for three days which should have been condoned and the amount should not have been disallowed.” 22. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the impugned issue is otherwise covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 143 taxmann.com

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 892/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

delay was only for three days which should have been condoned and the amount should not have been disallowed.” 22. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the impugned issue is otherwise covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 143 taxmann.com