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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 was served upon him at the old address. That communication had also consumed time. Therefore, the assessee could not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There was no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in filing the appeal was the result of ill health coupled with the change of his address thrice in a short

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking up the circumstances which had caused the delay during the period of limitation and thereafter

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)

43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income

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)

43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income

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)

43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income

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)

43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income

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)

43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income

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)

43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income

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)

5. Admittedly, no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in one of the S.L.Ps, namely, S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.32770 of 2022, delay has been condoned and in other S.L.Ps, notice has been issued to the respondents in the condone delay petitions. Since the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the very same issue

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

condonation of delay is, therefore, allowed, and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. On Merits: 8. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is directed against the order passed by CIT(Appeals), whereby he has Axiomatic iTech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 8– confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 43

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

CHIRAG BALKRISHNA PATEL,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-3(1)(2) VADODARA), GODHRA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chirag Balkrishna Patel Income Tax Officer, 15, Adarsh Society, Vs Ward-1, Godhra Vadodara Road, (Previous, Ito, Ward-3(1)(2), Halol, 389350 Vadodra) Gujarat Pan: Butpp1753 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31-10-2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – [National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)] (Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”) Which Was Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”).

condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The ld. CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law has grossly erred as he has not decided the grounds of appeal raised before him on merit. 3. The ld. CIT(A) and ld. AO on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

NIPA NISHITHBHAI PARIKH(EARLIER KNOWN AS NIPA K. MEHTA),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Nipa Nishithbhai Park Ito, Ward-3(2)(10) Earlier Known As Vs Ahmedabad. Nipa Kiritkumar Mehta A-96, Namrata Tenement Nr.Paras Nagar Bug Stop Isanpur, Ahmedabad 382 443 Pan : Aoxpm 5496 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Pamil H. Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2045 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /04/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 69A of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who noted that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 231 days and no plausible explanation was given by the assessee for the delay, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by not condoning the delay. 3 5. Before us, the ld.counsel

JIVRAJBHAI RAMABHAI CHAUDHARY,BANASKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Income Tax Officer Patel Vas, Village : Hadta, Jadiya Vs Ward-3 Tal. Dhanera Palanpur. Dist: Banaskantha Gujarat. Pan : Azzpp 6148 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

condoned, and I proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits. 4. Taking up now the appeal of the assessee for adjudication, the issue arising in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account to the tune of Rs.14,98,000/- during demonetization period