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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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?

delayed in terms of the time prescribed u/s 143(2) of the Act. Section 143(2) prescribes the time limit as under:- “143… (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

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 271(1

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation issued by CPC denying exemption under section 11, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the delay in filing Form No. 10B was procedural in nature and that the exemption under section 11 could not be denied merely

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay occurred in filing the impugned appeal by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 7 6. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation

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

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

condone the impugned delay of 581 days in filing appeal ITA No.649 /Ahd/2023 5 before the Tribunal, and proceed to take up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit. 7. The grievance of the assessee against the impugned order are given in the grounds of appeal, which read as under: “1. That on facts

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

section 12AA of the I.T. Act. 3. The solitary issue in this appeal is late filing of Form 10B thereby exemption u/s. 11 of the Act was disallowed while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC. The assessee filed condonation of delay of 35 days in filing Form 10B vide application dated

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be Imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” 17. On perusal of the above provisions

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be Imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” 17. On perusal of the above provisions

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.192-193/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.441-1, Sector-22, Vs. Ward-1, Nr. Police Chowkey, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The present appeal relating to the penalty preferred by the assessee was filed late by 1607 days. However, the delay in the quantum appeal for the identical number of days has already been condoned with detailed reasoning discussed in the preceding paragraph bearing number 6