SMT. NEELU SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, The Dy. Cit, Vs. 9Th Floor, Cambay Grand Hotel, Central Circle-2(2), S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Adypg 0351 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

delay filed by the assessee. Smt Neelu Sanjay Gupta Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 2 3. Before proceeding to deal with the condonation application, it is necessary to bring out a brief background of the case before us. In the impugned case, assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, making addition of loans and advances allegedly received

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

40,000/- towards unsecured loans in terms of section 68 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not furnished the required documentary evidence to substantiate their claim before the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority. The appellant preferred the further appeal before the Tribunal, with a delay of 380 days i.e., beyond

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

Section 154 of the Act filed by the assessee and assessed the total income at Rs. 5,31,40,660/-. 4. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that though the assessee had approached the jurisdictional CIT(E) for condonation of delay

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)

condone the delay of 2490 days in filing the above appeal arising out of the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 506/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Radhe Finsec India Ltd. vs. ITO 2. Brief facts

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Section 154 of the Act filed by\nthe assessee and assessed the total income at Rs.5,31,40,660/-.\n4. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by\nobserving that though the assessee had approached the jurisdictional\nCIT(E) for condonation of delay

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 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. I.T.A No. 1189/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 CAT Cosmetics And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: Your appellant being aggrieved by the order of Ld. Commissioner

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16 and ITA Nos.140/Ahd/2020 are filed by the assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the I.T.(SS)A No. 54/Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2015-16 Page No 2 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav

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

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

40,69,748/- as speculative loss, in commodity trading business and therefore the ld. Assessing Officer is to be directed to allow the said loss as business loss and its set off is to be given against other income, while computing the total income. 3. That your appellant craves to leave to add, alter or amend any grounds

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2013-14. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 326 days in filing the quantum appeals and 1 day delay in filing the penalty

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2013-14. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 326 days in filing the quantum appeals and 1 day delay in filing the penalty

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 460 days. The assessee has filed Affidavit before us seeking condonation of delay and giving reasons for the delay in filing of appeal for the impugned assessment year. In the Affidavit along-with application for condonation of delay, the assessee has cited medical reasons

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 460 days. The assessee has filed Affidavit before us seeking condonation of delay and giving reasons for the delay in filing of appeal for the impugned assessment year. In the Affidavit along-with application for condonation of delay, the assessee has cited medical reasons

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 460 days. The assessee has filed Affidavit before us seeking condonation of delay and giving reasons for the delay in filing of appeal for the impugned assessment year. In the Affidavit along-with application for condonation of delay, the assessee has cited medical reasons

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 460 days. The assessee has filed Affidavit before us seeking condonation of delay and giving reasons for the delay in filing of appeal for the impugned assessment year. In the Affidavit along-with application for condonation of delay, the assessee has cited medical reasons

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)

40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, i.e. delay in filing of Form no. 10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior

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)

40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, i.e. delay in filing of Form no. 10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior

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)

40 taxmann.com 143 (Agra-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case though was on similar grounds to the present case, i.e. delay in filing of Form no. 10 resulting into denial of exemption u/s 11(2) by AO but the findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2006-07 1.e. prior