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

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

condone the delay in filing he appeal. 9. Now we proceed to decide both the appeals on merit. In ground no.1, the assessee is challenging validity of re-assessment orders passed under section 147 of the Act. The assessee has filed statement facts in ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 the Asstt.year 2005-06, which is running into 35 pages

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

condone the delay in filing he appeal. 9. Now we proceed to decide both the appeals on merit. In ground no.1, the assessee is challenging validity of re-assessment orders passed under section 147 of the Act. The assessee has filed statement facts in ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 the Asstt.year 2005-06, which is running into 35 pages

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

section 41(1) of the act with regard to trading liability. The addition made on mere presumption is unjustified and liable to be deleted in toto. 6) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.” 46. This is an appeal filed by the assessee for various

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

section 41(1) of the act with regard to trading liability. The addition made on mere presumption is unjustified and liable to be deleted in toto. 6) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.” 46. This is an appeal filed by the assessee for various

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

section 41(1) of the act with regard to trading liability. The addition made on mere presumption is unjustified and liable to be deleted in toto. 6) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.” 46. This is an appeal filed by the assessee for various

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

section 41(1) of the act with regard to trading liability. The addition made on mere presumption is unjustified and liable to be deleted in toto. 6) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.” 46. This is an appeal filed by the assessee for various

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

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

section 143(2) dated 2.9.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the ld.AO has narrated details of other notices issued and served upon the assessee, which were required to be complied with. The assessee did not give any reply. The ld.AO haS made addition of Rs.1,49,15,000/- to the total income of the assessee. Along with

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)

51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing

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)

51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing

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)

51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing

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)

51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing

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)

51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing

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)

51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3,85,16,135/ (b) VUDA Development Charges Rs. 68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay and proceed to decided both the appeals on merit. 9. First we take IT(SS)A.No.45/Ahd/2020 (Quantum appeal): 10. In this appeal, the assessee has taken one additional ground of appeal, whereby he has pleaded as under: “The action of the ld.AO in framing the assessment u/s.153A r.w. section

PARANTAP CHARITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD- EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1697/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम Parantap Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer 421, Vraj Siddhi Tower, Ward – Exemption, / Khanderao Market Char Vadodara Vs. Rasta, Rajmahal Road, Vadodara - 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aactp0976E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr 07/01/2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 15.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

51 years, residing at D- 13, Anil park 2, B/h Bright School, Korelibaug, Vadodara solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows to explain the delay of 368 days in filing the appeal to the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in case of Parantap Charitable Trust. 2. The chain of events in the case of Parantap Charitable Trust

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

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