RADHE FINSEC INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 2490 days in filing the above appeal arising out of the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 506/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Radhe Finsec India Ltd. vs. ITO 2. Brief facts

ASSOCIATION OF INDIA PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC , BENGLURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

55,288/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. The assessee submitted that Form 10B has not been filed within due time along with the Return of Income. However, Form 10B was filed belatedly on 15.03.2019. Therefore the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of Section 11 & 12 of the Act. The Ld. NFAC

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

condone the delay of 1442 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 10. The assessee in the 1st and additional ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Asstt. Year 2012-13 7 11. The facts in brief in the present

PINKAL SURESHKUMAR KOTHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

section 253(5) of the Act, and ITA No.1303/Ahd/2025 [Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 5 – b) Admit the appeal for adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. The Appellant further undertakes to abide by any directions that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to pass in this regard

MEDIP HEALTHTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

55,020/- and consequently reducing demand to Rs.11,26,200/-. However, CPC continued to apply the old rate of 30%, holding that the assessee had not furnished Form No. 10-IC electronically as required under Rule 21AE. 2.4 The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that it had opted for section 115BAA

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

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

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

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

KATRINA SATISHKUMAR KIRPALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is, allowed for statistical purposes

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. ITA No.1599/Ahd/2025 [Katrina Satishkumar Kirpalani vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – 2. The registry has reported a delay of 324 days in the filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

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

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

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

55 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the detailed application thereby stating the reasons. After going through the same it appears that the I.T.A Nos. 10 to 13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

55 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the detailed application thereby stating the reasons. After going through the same it appears that the I.T.A Nos. 10 to 13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

55 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the detailed application thereby stating the reasons. After going through the same it appears that the I.T.A Nos. 10 to 13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

55 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the detailed application thereby stating the reasons. After going through the same it appears that the I.T.A Nos. 10 to 13/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 to 2012-13 Page No. 26 reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal appears

ANJU BHARAT CHELANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoning the delay in filing the appeal late by 17 days, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo. The CIT(A) had not given any opportunity to explain delay even in the notice dtd. 06.11.2025 and the issuance of penalty notice dtd. Anju Bharat Chelani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 2– 02.05.2024 was available

THE KHEDBRAHMA TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which

condone the delay of 9 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with