BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

179 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 45(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai564Chennai563Delhi534Kolkata323Bangalore240Ahmedabad179Hyderabad174Jaipur163Karnataka145Chandigarh134Pune116Nagpur81Indore64Lucknow63Cuttack52Amritsar47Raipur42Visakhapatnam41Rajkot40Surat40Calcutta39Patna38SC24Cochin22Telangana14Guwahati14Varanasi13Allahabad10Agra10Dehradun9Jabalpur5Panaji5Orissa4Ranchi3Jodhpur2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Penalty42Section 143(3)41Section 6834Section 271(1)(c)33Condonation of Delay31Section 3727Limitation/Time-bar27Section 147

TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 166/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 3

delay in filing the present appeal is accordingly condoned. 8. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us on merit. 7 9. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as they are a blend of descriptive and argumentative contents.In fact,these

Showing 1–20 of 179 · Page 1 of 9

...
26
Disallowance23
Section 13222
Section 234A17

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1022/AHD/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 292BSection 69

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

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

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92BSection 92C

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

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

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?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253Section 270A

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

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

45 and ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. PAN : ADTPT 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, AR Shri Vijay Govani, AR Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार

SHREE KASTBHANJAN EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1085/AHD/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das & Shri H. Pahi Raju, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

45, Infraprasth Bunglows, Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No. AAETS5478C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1106/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Puja Foundation, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax C/22, Riveri Antilia, Corporate (Exemption), Road, Gujarat-380015 Ahmedabad [PAN No. AATFP1718R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.1085/Ahd/2023 & 04 others Shree Kashtbhanjan Education And Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) & 04 others Asst.Year – N.A. Appellant by : Shri Parin

JAGDIP EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1086/AHD/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das & Shri H. Pahi Raju, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

45, Infraprasth Bunglows, Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No. AAETS5478C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1106/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Puja Foundation, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax C/22, Riveri Antilia, Corporate (Exemption), Road, Gujarat-380015 Ahmedabad [PAN No. AATFP1718R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.1085/Ahd/2023 & 04 others Shree Kashtbhanjan Education And Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) & 04 others Asst.Year – N.A. Appellant by : Shri Parin

PUJA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1106/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das & Shri H. Pahi Raju, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

45, Infraprasth Bunglows, Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No. AAETS5478C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1106/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Puja Foundation, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax C/22, Riveri Antilia, Corporate (Exemption), Road, Gujarat-380015 Ahmedabad [PAN No. AATFP1718R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.1085/Ahd/2023 & 04 others Shree Kashtbhanjan Education And Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) & 04 others Asst.Year – N.A. Appellant by : Shri Parin

SHRI RAMNIKLAL MAGANLAL PANCHAL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1089/AHD/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das & Shri H. Pahi Raju, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

45, Infraprasth Bunglows, Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No. AAETS5478C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1106/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Puja Foundation, Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax C/22, Riveri Antilia, Corporate (Exemption), Road, Gujarat-380015 Ahmedabad [PAN No. AATFP1718R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.1085/Ahd/2023 & 04 others Shree Kashtbhanjan Education And Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) & 04 others Asst.Year – N.A. Appellant by : Shri Parin

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

ITA 283/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

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”).

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhiyaru, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

section 69A of the Act without considering the facts and merit of the case and prays your honour to kindly delete the same. 5. Kindly stay the demand. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary. Facts of the Case: 3. The appellant is an individual who, filed

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

ITA 2412/AHD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

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

ITA 2413/AHD/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

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

ITA 2420/AHD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

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

ITA 2339/AHD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

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

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.9,460/- under section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D of the Rules. 8.Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee, does not wish to press ground No.1, therefore, we dismiss ground No.1, as not pressed. 9.Ground No.2 relates

SACHINKUMAR PREMANANDBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 596/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Sachinkumar Premanandbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1 Nr.Old Post Office Vs. Anand. Bhalej Anand Umreth, Gujarat Pan : Auhpp 8057 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Sigh, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 54

5) of the Act. The delay of 233 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Facts of the Case 3.1 The assessee is an individual and was treated as a non-filer. Based on information available on record, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had, along with 7 other joint holders, allegedly sold

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1034/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

condone the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT(A). 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and amend any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading of grains, grams

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

condone the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT(A). 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and amend any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading of grains, grams

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

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not at all applicable to the Appellant since there was no concealment of income on the part of the appellant, and therefore, the consequential penalty