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.

73,000/- of Credit under section 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

M/S. ROSY ROYAL MINERALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

73,847/- u/s 220(2] of the Act payable on account of penalty demand of Rs.37,07,727/- (copy enclosed). It is also may be noted that this letter dated 28.08.2017 is available with the assessee in its own records and in response to this letter the assessee had started to make payment towards the penalty demand from 17.03.2016 with

BHARATKUMAR SOMABHAI PATEL,BANASHKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as in limine

73, where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following important observations: "It is true that a party is entitled to until the day of limitation for filing an appeal, when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of event or circumstance arising before

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?

73-A, or sub- section (1) or sub- section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74-A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub- section (1) a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

73,98,000/- had already been deleted in earlier appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) held that the issue of bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

73,98,000/- had already been deleted in earlier appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) held that the issue of bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

73,98,000/- had already been deleted in earlier appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) held that the issue of bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

73,98,000/- had already been deleted in earlier appellate proceedings, the CIT(Appeals) held that the issue of bogus purchases had been set aside in entirety by the Hon’ble ITAT for fresh adjudication and therefore the earlier relief granted by the CIT(A) stood merged with the order of the Tribunal. It was observed that the Assessing Officer

MANSHA TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

73,280/- under section 288A, and initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c). Interest as per the Act was directed to be charged. 2.7 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was instituted on 25.01.2018 against the AO’s order dated 16.03.2015, thus involving a delay of about 1012 days. The assessee’s case on condonation

SHRI DEVENDRA THAKERSHIBHAI THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

section 145(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Condonation of Delay 4. It was observed that there is delay of 880 days in filing an appeal before us. The assessee has filed an application for condonation

BALARAM CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

condonation of delay it is to be ensured that a meritorious case is not thrown out on the grounds of limitation. 4.1. Taking note of this submission of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, he was asked at bar to explain how on merits he had a good case before the Ld.PCIT such that if the appeal is held

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GANDHINAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY (GUDA),, GANDHINAGAR,

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1560 & 1561/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.05 & 06/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy.Cit (Exemptions) Gandhinagar Urban Development Cir.1 Vs Authority, 4Th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Ahmedabad. Sector 11, Gandhinagar 382 011. Pan : Aaalg 0922 K

condonation of delay and proceed to decide the COs on merit along the appeal of the Revenue. 8. First we take the appeal of the Revenue for Asstt.Year 2009-10. 9. Though the Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal, the grievances pleaded in this four grounds revolve around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in quashing

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GANDHINAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUHORITY (GUDA),, GANDHINAGAR,

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1560 & 1561/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.05 & 06/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dy.Cit (Exemptions) Gandhinagar Urban Development Cir.1 Vs Authority, 4Th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Ahmedabad. Sector 11, Gandhinagar 382 011. Pan : Aaalg 0922 K

condonation of delay and proceed to decide the COs on merit along the appeal of the Revenue. 8. First we take the appeal of the Revenue for Asstt.Year 2009-10. 9. Though the Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal, the grievances pleaded in this four grounds revolve around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in quashing

SUCHIT ARVINDBHAI PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-4,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose, and both stay petitions are dismissed as being redundant

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

73,142/- out of quantum addition and Rs.5,92,697/- out of penalty amount imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset, while taking us through record, contended that the assessment was framed under section 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act i.e. on the basis of best

CONTROL PLUS OIL & GAS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

delay of 73 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal stands condoned and the appeal of the assessee deserves to be proceeded on merits. 7. As recorded in the first appellate order in conjunction with the audited balance sheet, it is evident that the loan facility has been taken against the security of the capital asset. The diversion of loan

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)

73,532/-, Interest on Convertible loans Rs.8,78,43,328/- Reimbursement of expenses Rs.10,63,95,565/- International transactions of sale with Rs.49,62,01,570/- Zydus USA Benchmarking of margins Rs. 60,08,488/- purchase of fixed assets Rs.7,64,781/- Segmental profitability of AE Rs.1,67,22,377/- Sale of shares of ZAHL Rs.51

THE DCITA'BAD CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SUN FINLEASE(GUJARAT) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

delay is condoned. 11. As mentioned elsewhere, in the order framed u/s. 154 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) held that provisions of Section 73

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)

73,695/-. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. 16. The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 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

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)

73,695/-. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. 16. The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 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