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

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

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)

condone delay petitions. Since the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the very same issue, that has been raised in this writ petition, the benefit granted to those petitioners must also enure to the benefit of this writ petitioner also. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 is hereby quashed on the ground that the same is barred

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

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

43,026/- made on account of alleged inflated purchases. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 7 years and 3 months in filing the appeal by the assessee. There was a condonation petition and affidavit filed by the assessee. The reasons specified

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

43,026/- made on account of alleged inflated purchases. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 7 years and 3 months in filing the appeal by the assessee. There was a condonation petition and affidavit filed by the assessee. The reasons specified

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

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 of days in filing of the present appeal: 6. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 545 days in filing of the present appeal

SHREE AATH PARAGANA GURJAR PRAJAPATI SAMAJ TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Aath Paragana Gurjar Prajapati The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Trust Vs. Vejalpur Prajapati Bhavan Chatrala Ahmedabad. Sola Railway Over Bridge Naittar Chede, Sola Ghatlodia. Pan : Abfts 9086 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

delay of 183 days is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The assessee trust had earlier been granted provisional registration under section 12AB by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, vide order dated 07.03.2023 issued in Form No. 10AC, for the assessment years 2023–24 to 2025–26. Thereafter, in accordance

SHRI BHAVNAGAR DASHASHRIMALI KANTHIBANDH (VAISHNAV) VANIK GNATI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 417 days (as computed by the Registry) in filing both appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the cases: 3.1 The assessee is a registered public charitable trust which was granted provisional registration under section 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) vide order in Form No. 10AC dated 13.01.2022, valid for assessment years

SHRI BHAVNAGAR DASHASHRIMALI KANTHIBANDH (VAISHNAV) VANIK GNATI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

delay of 417 days (as computed by the Registry) in filing both appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the cases: 3.1 The assessee is a registered public charitable trust which was granted provisional registration under section 12AB(1)(ac)(vi) vide order in Form No. 10AC dated 13.01.2022, valid for assessment years

TEJAS KARSHANBHAI DARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That Lrd CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad has erred in law in rejecting delay Condon application filed by the appellant which has not been done in right perspective therefore, considering the totality of facts, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore