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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

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

M/S. RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1)(va).” Ground No.1:- 4. The main issue raised in the appeal is this that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal in view of the Notification being No. 11/2016 (F. No. 149/150/2015-TPL dated 01.03.2016 and CBDT Circular ITA Nos.1538&1539/Ahd/2018 Balaji Electrical Insulators P Ltd. vs. DCIT & ITO Asst.Years

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1)(va).” Ground No.1:- 4. The main issue raised in the appeal is this that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal in view of the Notification being No. 11/2016 (F. No. 149/150/2015-TPL dated 01.03.2016 and CBDT Circular ITA Nos.1538&1539/Ahd/2018 Balaji Electrical Insulators P Ltd. vs. DCIT & ITO Asst.Years

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

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

C. DOCTOR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 C. Dotor India P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Ahmedabad. Plot No.3607 To 3608, Gidc Estate Vs. Phase-Iv, Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Pan : Aaaci 3673 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri L.P.Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

condonation of delay nor removed objection. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to observe that this appeal was listed on 16.9.219, and application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the assessee. Hearing was adjourned to 1.11.2019. But thereafter no one 2 appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice for today’s hearing was served through registered post

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

RANKAS TEXFAB PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) in government account to the amount of Rs. 2,35,277/-. It is noticed that appeal of the assessee was time barred by two days and assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. On merit also, it is noticed

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

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