SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

69, Rs.7,730/- of Income, Rs.48,000/- for Household expenses and addition u/s 154 of Rs.49,930/-) has been made by the Id.AO and therefore the AO is directed delete the said additions, while computing the total income. 4. The Id.AO is to be directed to compute the correct amount of interest under section 234A and 234B

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

69,748/- as speculative loss, in commodity trading business and therefore the ld. Assessing Officer is to be directed to allow the said loss as business loss and its set off is to be given against other income, while computing the total income. 3. That your appellant craves to leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac), that the additions under sections 69

ISPATAM METALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result all the grounds raised on merits of the addition made are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing of present appeal of 69 days is condoned. 4. Taking up the appeal for adjudication the grounds raised read as under:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s. 250 passed on 09.09.2024 for AY 2018-19 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)" upholding the additions aggregating to Rs. 4,78,45,243/- made

KETANKUMAR ARVINDBHAI AMIN,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1191 & 1210/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-12 Ketankumar Arvindbhai Amin, I.T.O., 59/A, Dwarkesh Nagar, Vs. Ward-1(2)(1), Nr. Mansarovar, Vadodara. Chhani, Vadodara.

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by him on merit. 6.6 The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT –A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment under the provisions of section 69

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

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

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

condone the delay, therefore, we first take preliminary issue only. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 14.10.2013 declaring total income at Rs.2,20,730/-. According to the AO, this case was selected through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) dated 2.9.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter

THE ANKLAV MERCANTILE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ANAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning delay in fulfilling appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating addition made U/s 68 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.8,17,68,248/- as unexplained cash credit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts not adjudicating addition made U/s 69

SINGULARITY LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-2020 Singularity Labs Private Limited Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) A Wing, Unit No.105 Vs. Ahmedabad- 380 Building No.1-A, Aqualine Properties 015. Pvt.Ltd. It/Ites Sez, Koba Gandhinagar – 382 421 Pan : Aaycs 8711 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

69,46,856/- claimed under section 10AA of the Act only due to a minor delay of 5 days in filing Form 56F. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning

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)

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly