BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay in filing of appeal before learned CIT(A). 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and amend any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading of grains, grams

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

67,440 / - made in the said order be deleted. (iii) Any other relief that your honor may deem fit is necessary. 6. Your Honor appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal or before the hearing of appeal.” On Condonation of delay: 4. It was observed that there was delay

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

67,440 / - made in the said order be deleted. (iii) Any other relief that your honor may deem fit is necessary. 6. Your Honor appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal or before the hearing of appeal.” On Condonation of delay: 4. It was observed that there was delay

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

MAHEMUDKHAN AJAMUDDIN RANA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

67,90,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income, which was subject to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) were also initiated for unexplained income and non-compliance to statutory notices, respectively. 4. In appeal, he Commissioner (Appeals

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

condoned for which act of kindness the appellant will forever pray.” ITA No.1559/Ahd/2025 [Bhavnath Education Trust vs. ITO(E)] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – 3. To substantiate the above explanation for the delay in filing of the present appeal being on account of the order being served on an incorrect email ID, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew my attention

DARSHIT GUNWANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

67,802/- made under section 43B of the Act by the was confirmed. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The appeal

SHREE HARSANIJI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Harsaniji Public Charitable Trust Ito (Exemption) 32, Shiv Society Part-2 Vs Palanpur. Nr.B.K. Cinema Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aaats 7750 B.

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. 11. In our considered view, the AO as well as CIT(A) are not ready to follow 67 years old Circular and the provisions viz. sub-section

EXIM CLUB,VADODARA vs. COMMI. OF INCOMETAX-1, VADODARA

67 taxmann.com 264. As the present registration is granted by the Ld. CIT on 12.11.2014, the amendments made in section 12AA takes effect from 01.10.2014 is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and thereby pleaded to condone the huge delay

EXIM CLUB,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, VADODARA

67 taxmann.com 264. As the present registration is granted by the Ld. CIT on 12.11.2014, the amendments made in section 12AA takes effect from 01.10.2014 is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and thereby pleaded to condone the huge delay

EXIM CLUB,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, VADODARA

67 taxmann.com 264. As the present registration is granted by the Ld. CIT on 12.11.2014, the amendments made in section 12AA takes effect from 01.10.2014 is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and thereby pleaded to condone the huge delay

KAILASH CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Explained That The Impugned Orders Were Communicated To The Assessee On 12-10-2023. Since The E-Mail Sent To The Assessee Were Being Marked As Spam, So The Assessee Trust Could Not Verify The Exparte Orders & Realized The Same While Filing The Return Of Income Which Has Resulted In A Delay Of 67 & 63 Days & Requested To Condone The Bonafide Mistake On The Part Of The Assessee Trust. Ld. Cit-Dr Has No Serious Objection In Condoning The Delay. Thus The Delay Of 67 & 63 Days In Filing The Above Appeals Are Hereby Condoned.

section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). I.T.A Nos. 280 & 281/Ahd/2024 Page No 2 Kailash Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) 2. The appeals are filed with a delay of 67 & 63 days before this Tribunal. The assessee explained that the impugned orders were communicated to the assessee

KAILASH CHARITABLE TRUST ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Explained That The Impugned Orders Were Communicated To The Assessee On 12-10-2023. Since The E-Mail Sent To The Assessee Were Being Marked As Spam, So The Assessee Trust Could Not Verify The Exparte Orders & Realized The Same While Filing The Return Of Income Which Has Resulted In A Delay Of 67 & 63 Days & Requested To Condone The Bonafide Mistake On The Part Of The Assessee Trust. Ld. Cit-Dr Has No Serious Objection In Condoning The Delay. Thus The Delay Of 67 & 63 Days In Filing The Above Appeals Are Hereby Condoned.

section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). I.T.A Nos. 280 & 281/Ahd/2024 Page No 2 Kailash Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) 2. The appeals are filed with a delay of 67 & 63 days before this Tribunal. The assessee explained that the impugned orders were communicated to the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA vs. JAY DUSHYANT PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, we find that Ld

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 139(1) but before completion of assessment proceedings, assessee's FTC claim was to be allowed. The ITAT made the following observations in this regard: “We find that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court on identical issue that the Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules does not provide for disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA vs. JAY DUSHYANT PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, we find that Ld

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 139(1) but before completion of assessment proceedings, assessee's FTC claim was to be allowed. The ITAT made the following observations in this regard: “We find that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court on identical issue that the Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules does not provide for disallowance

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