RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

65 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: I.T.A No. 797/Ahd/2023 Page No 11 Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal vs. CIT(E) “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under section

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

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

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

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

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

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

12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, Form 10B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 01.04.2016 applicable for the Assessment Year 2016-17 onwards. I.T.A No. 24/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 3 Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer Vs. DCIT CPC As per the CBDT Circular 273 dated 03.06.1980, the CBDT has authorized the jurisdictional CIT/DIT to condone

SHRI SOJI JAIN SHWETA DERASAR MURTI PUNJAK SANGH,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD(EXEMPTION), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

65,755/-, after Shri Soji Jain Shweta Derasar Murti Punjak Sangh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– deducting Rs.3,81,975/- erroneously added twice in the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under Section 271AAA came to be levied on such addition which was confirmed by CIT(A) as well

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

BHAVNATH EDUCATION TRUST,BAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1559/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Bhavnath Education Trust Income Tax Officer Bhanagar Highway, Dist. (Exemption) Vs. Bhavnagar, Ranghola- Ward, Bhavnagar 364230 / Aayakar Bhawan, Income Sanghavi & Company, Tax Office, Bhavanagar Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2003J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M K Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2026 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

65 to 67. My attention was, thereafter, drawn to the reply so filed dated 5th of February, 2020 mentioning the fact of ITA No.1559/Ahd/2025 [Bhavnath Education Trust vs. ITO(E)] A.Y. 2018-19 - 8 – ledger and vouchers of application made towards the objective of the trust being enclosed at Annexure 7 placed at paper book page no.68. My attention, thereafter

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

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

65,028/- Rs. Nil for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order for A.Y. 2015-16 Gross Total Income Rs. 18,07,02,90,489/- Chapter VI-A Rs. 2,39,90,500/- ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 9 – Total Income Rs. 18,04,62,99,989 /- Rounded

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