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)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case

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)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case

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)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case

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)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case

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)

46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section 2(15) of the IT Act is not applicable to the case

SHRI DEVENDRA THAKERSHIBHAI THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, submitting Sales and purchase registers, original bills and invoices, Bank statements, Stock details and supporting documents for expenses. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and called for a remand report from the AO. The AO, in the remand report dated 20/02/2018, categorically stated that the books of accounts were duly verified

M/S. K.B.MEHTA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2010/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. K.B. Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 509, Milestone, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. T.V. Tower, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Asstt. Year 2012-13 4 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance ofinterest expenses of Rs.3,11,0107-u/s.36

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

delay in filing of all five appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Facts of the Case 4.1 The facts, as emerging from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), are substantially common across all the assessment years under consideration. 4.2 The assessee is an individual engaged in small business

RAJENDRA SHAKHARAM BADGUJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Mr.Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar The Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 42, Jay Raghunath Society Vs. Vejalpur Priya Cinema Road Ahmedabad. Krushnanagar Saijpur Ahmedabad 382 346. Pan : Afupb 1181 J (Applicant) (Responent)

section 249(3) of the Act, and the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7.2 We also note that the assessee had filed before the CIT(A) additional evidences in the form of confirmations from friends and relatives, agricultural cash receipts, cash book, and bank passbook to explain

SNEHA PAWAN AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

delay in filing these appeals is\nhereby condoned. The appeals are thus admitted for adjudication on merits.\n3. Facts of the Case\n3.1 The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of textile trading\nand finance under the proprietary concern M/s Ayush Finance and\nInvestment Company, had filed her regular returns of income for both years\nunder consideration. Subsequently, both

SNEHA PAWAN AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

delay in filing these appeals is\nhereby condoned. The appeals are thus admitted for adjudication on merits.\n3.\nFacts of the Case\n3.1 The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of textile trading\nand finance under the proprietary concern M/s Ayush Finance and\nInvestment Company, had filed her regular returns of income for both years\nunder consideration. Subsequently, both

M/S. SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. Facts of the case: 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership-firm engaged in the business of real estate development. As per the information available with the I&CI Wing of Department, it was found that the assessee had purchased non-agricultural land

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

condone delays by levy of interest more particularly in the facts of the present case where there is an unreasonable delay in the filing of return , leaving hardly any scope for the AO to scrutinize the return filed by the assessee. The law cannot be interpreted in such an unreasonable manner. In view of the above, we hold that

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

condone delays by levy of interest more particularly in the facts of the present case where there is an unreasonable delay in the filing of return , leaving hardly any scope for the AO to scrutinize the return filed by the assessee. The law cannot be interpreted in such an unreasonable manner. In view of the above, we hold that

RAJESH AMARSINH PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

46A was filed during appellate proceedings. The appellant had deposited cash of Rs.54,52,835/- in various bank accounts during the year that too through various branches of the bank. The appellant has not furnished any justifiable explanation for the deposits in cash at enquiry level with Investigation Wing or at assessment level. Rajesh Amarsinh Prajapati vs. ITO Asst.Year