WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

condone the delay in filing he appeal. 9. Now we proceed to decide both the appeals on merit. In ground no.1, the assessee is challenging validity of re-assessment orders passed under section 147 of the Act. The assessee has filed statement facts in ITA No.1864/Ahd/2013 and 225.Ahd/2014 the Asstt.year 2005-06, which is running into 35 pages

M/S. K.B.MEHTA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2010/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. K.B. Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 509, Milestone, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. T.V. Tower, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Asstt. Year 2012-13 4 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance ofinterest expenses of Rs.3,11,0107-u/s.36

DHARMENDRA SUMATICHANDRA SHETH, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “[A] Dismissal of appeal by not condoning the delay. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by deciding the appeal ex- parte especially when

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)

84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision of the IT Act and book

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing of present appeal is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice. 18. In this case, we observe that the Ld. CIT-I, Baroda dismissed the application for grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act on the ground that since the application for registration of trust under Section 12A of the Act has been declined

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing of present appeal is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice. 18. In this case, we observe that the Ld. CIT-I, Baroda dismissed the application for grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act on the ground that since the application for registration of trust under Section 12A of the Act has been declined

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CPC,, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing of present appeal is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice. 18. In this case, we observe that the Ld. CIT-I, Baroda dismissed the application for grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act on the ground that since the application for registration of trust under Section 12A of the Act has been declined

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMINNI JAMAT,PATAN vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMIN JAMAT META,BANASKANTHA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMIN JAMAT IMAMVADA,PATAN vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

SHIA JAFARI MASHAYAKHI MOMIN JAMAT MASJID,PATAN vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarsr.

delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessees contended that although notices were issued by the CIT(E), the same could not be effectively responded to due to administrative constraints and failure on the part

DEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

delay of 462 days in filling of the instant appeal seems to be bonafide, reasonable, sufficient and unintentional, hence deserves to be condoned. Consequently the same stands condoned. 5. On merits, the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 12 the paper book to submit that as at 31-03-2009, the assessee had reserves and surplus amounting

PHELIX APPLIANCES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Phelix Appliances Ltd. The Income Tax बनाम/ 9, B, Shitalkunj Society Officer Vs. Manjalpur Ward-4(2) Baroda - 390 010 Baroda – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 1857 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr.Dr

condone the delay, and accordingly we proceed to hear the ground of appeal of the assessee on merit. 6. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the penalty of Rs. 2,70,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Briefly stated

SHREE BHAKT SAMAJ VIKAS EDUCATION TRUST,BODELI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

84,31,074/- on the ground that the assessee had not filed the Audit Report in Form 10B prior to the due date for furnishing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that despite issuance of various notices of hearing, none appeared

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the CO of the assessee. Hence, we admit the CO filed by the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merit. ITA No.204/Ahd/2013 with C.O.No.45/Ahd/2015 and 7 others A.Y. 2008-09 19 14.1 The first objection raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the alternate claim

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. LATE KHODAJI RANCHHODJI THAKOR LEGAL HEIR NARENDAKUMAR KHODAJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.948/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Ward-4(2)(1) बनाम/ Thakor V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Legal Heir Narendrakumar Khodaji Thakor Ahmedabad – 382 481 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afwpt 1453 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

84,687/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same under section 115BBE at the rate of 60%. Further, the AO made an addition of Rs. 31,70,000/- representing the assessee’s investment in immovable property, which was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The total income of the assessee

EKLAVYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 315/Ahd/2020 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Eklavya Education The Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Foundation Vs. Tax Core House, Off. C. G. Circle–1, Exemptions, Road, Nr. Parimal Garden, Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – 380006 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace7987R (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 14/10/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

condone the delay. 3. The assessee has come up in appeal mainly on following ground: “1. The learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law and on facts in wrongly applying section 11(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and not allowing our claim of depreciation of Rs.85,10,192/- comprising of depreciation of Rs.7

THE BHAGYODAY SHARAFI SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD-3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

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

delay of 24 days in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members on which it earned and incurred interest income from banks and members. For the Asst. year 2017-18, assessee filed its Return