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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

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

section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with appeal papers before him. It is submitted that there being reasonable cause on the part of the appellant in filling appeal beyond statutory time limit such delay should have been condoned

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

Section 253(6)(d). Thus, the appeal fee paid was deficient by Rs. 9500/- which the assesse is required to deposit, were the contention of ld. DR. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesse will deposit the deficient fee of Rs. 9,500/- , although the assesse was earlier having a bonafide belief that the assesse was liable

VISHVA KALYAN FOUNDATION,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2 EXEMPETION AHMEDABAD, AHMEDAABD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing 2. The CPC has erred in law as well as in facts in denial of exemption to the appellant on the ground that the form no 10B was not E-furnished within the due date. Shri Vishva Kalyan Foundation Vs.ITO(exemption), Asst.Year

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)

96] , Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse[(1997) 6 SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India [(2002) 3 SCC 722 : JT (2002) 3 SC 21] .)” 29. The language employed is simple. 31.12.2019 is the last date for the assessing officer to pass his order under Section 153. The TPO has to pass his order

LAHAR JOSHI,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

delay condonation request was done. Thus, appeal was not fought on merits at CIT(A). Thus, appeal was not fought on merits at CIT(A). This is the only ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 26.12.2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,96,320/- for the A.Y. 2018-19. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny

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)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,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)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

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)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

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)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

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 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

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 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

KUSHAL VINODKUMAR BHATT LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI VINODKUMAR RAMANLAL BHATT,ANAND vs. THE ACIT (OSD), WARD-5, ANAND

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

Section 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.\nI.T.A No. 752/Ahd/2025 Α.Υ. 2011-12\nKushal Vinodkumar Bhatt Legal Heir of Late Shri Vinodkumar Ramanlal Bhatt. vs. ACIT\nPage No\n2\n2. The registry has noted that there is delay of 96 days in filing

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

96 TTJ 1). The ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was also dismissed as being consequential. The remaining grounds being general in nature were treated as dismissed. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in entirety. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal