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

condonation of delay in a duly sworn affidavit. Referring to the same, he has attributed the delay to the fact that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was served on an email ID, which was not the email ID mentioned by the assessee in the appeal form submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) in Form No.35. Therefore, all notices

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)

97,868/- remains to be set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act after reducing revenue expenditure of Rs.3,85,16,135/- from the gross receipts of Rs.32,13,14,003/-]. 5. Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement and direction issued therein

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)

97,868/- remains to be set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act after reducing revenue expenditure of Rs.3,85,16,135/- from the gross receipts of Rs.32,13,14,003/-]. 5. Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement and direction issued therein

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)

97,868/- remains to be set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act after reducing revenue expenditure of Rs.3,85,16,135/- from the gross receipts of Rs.32,13,14,003/-]. 5. Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement and direction issued therein

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)

97,868/- remains to be set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act after reducing revenue expenditure of Rs.3,85,16,135/- from the gross receipts of Rs.32,13,14,003/-]. 5. Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement and direction issued therein

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)

97,868/- remains to be set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act after reducing revenue expenditure of Rs.3,85,16,135/- from the gross receipts of Rs.32,13,14,003/-]. 5. Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement and direction issued therein

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)

97,868/- remains to be set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act after reducing revenue expenditure of Rs.3,85,16,135/- from the gross receipts of Rs.32,13,14,003/-]. 5. Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has taken note of the Supreme Court judgement and direction issued therein

SUBHASHCHANDRA KESHAVLAL BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, INTL. TAXN. -1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

condonation of delay and upholding the addition of Rs.25,97,250/ may please be deleted.” 3. As per the information, the Assessing Officer observed that during the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 the assessee made investments in shares of Rs.5,10,296/-. The assessee did not file return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. This case was reported under

LANDMARK LIFESTYLE CARS PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoned in absence of proper, good and sufficient reasons for delay in the filing the appeal be assessee.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesee company deals in sale of motor Vehicles and motor Parts. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the genuineness of large expenses incurred by the Landmark

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.11.2021 pertaining to Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has notified that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 581 days. In order to explain the reasons for the impugned delay, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC order was passed against the assessee

SACHIN KANUBHAI THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.732/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer 4, Jivraj Park बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(7) Nr. Vejalpur Ahmedabad V/S. Near State Bank Of India Jivraj Park Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupt 1202 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

section 144 of the Income Tax Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee filed his return of income for the. A.Y. 2017-18 on 30-10-2017 declaring the total income of Rs.3

JANKI WIND FARM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

condone genuine claims made after expiry of due\ndates. As the assessee had not approached the CBDT under section\n119(2)(b), the CIT(A) concluded that the appeal was not maintainable. The\nappeal was accordingly dismissed.\n3.\nAggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us\nraising following grounds of appeal

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. A.Y. 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “[I] Addition on account of disallowance of loss in trading of shares of Chandni Textile Engineering Industries Ltd. Rs.1,52.20.891/- 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above appeals by the Revenue and take up the appeals for adjudication. 4. ITA No.386/Ahd/2023 is the taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an autonomous body which is established under section 22 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Area Development