RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

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

41 (Delhi)/[2013] 213 Taxman 65 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: I.T.A No. 797/Ahd/2023 Page No 11 Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal vs. CIT(E) “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under section

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

ASSOCIATION OF INDIA PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC , BENGLURU

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

Section 11 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. Senior Counsel, Mr. Tushar Hemani appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a charitable institution and it has also registered by the Commissioner u/s. 12AA of the Act. Similar issue arose in assessee’s own case for the Asesment

M/S. ROSY ROYAL MINERALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

41 1. Page 9. V. Besides the above decisions by Hon. S.C. and Hon. H.C. ITAT Jaipur bench in case of Rakesh Garg V, ITO in Appeal No. 316 to 318 /JP/2020 almost identical facts condoned the delay relying on various other decision as on quoted page 4 to 9 of the order and has reproduced principles laid down

BHAGYALAXMI STEEL ROLLING MILL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay and admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 10. Having said so, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised before us which read as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on acts of the case, in sustaining addition of alleged cessation of liability of Rs.5,45,347/- u/s 41

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

41. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal is delayed by 460 days. In view of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay on account of medical reasons, and being satisfied that there existed sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman

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

41. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal is delayed by 460 days. In view of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay on account of medical reasons, and being satisfied that there existed sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman

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

41. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal is delayed by 460 days. In view of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay on account of medical reasons, and being satisfied that there existed sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman

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

41. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal is delayed by 460 days. In view of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay on account of medical reasons, and being satisfied that there existed sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman

SHRI GAURAV VINODBHAI MITRA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

condonation of delay, 4 then the issue on merit were required to be relegated to the file of the Revenue authorities; but in order to appraise ourselves about the genuine hardship of the assessee, and how Revenue authorities have exercised their power for assessing income, we deem it appropriate to take brief note of the explanation of the assessee

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

HUSENI STATIONERY & PAPER MART,GODHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

41,77,000/- on account of unexplained money made by the Assessing Officer). Further, penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were also initiated separately for the unexplained money added under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the grounds of delay in filing