SMT. NEELU SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, The Dy. Cit, Vs. 9Th Floor, Cambay Grand Hotel, Central Circle-2(2), S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Adypg 0351 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

loss." 19. In the light of various judicial pronouncements by various Courts and the principles for condonation of delay having been laid down and settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions to the effect that the assessee’s right to appeal should not be denied on the mere technicality of limitation and liberal view should be taken

MSK PROJECT (INDIA) JV LTD. CO.(MERGED WITH MADHAV INFRA PROJECT LTD),VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

delay Condonation in filing appeal (1) The appellant MSK Project (India) JV Limited now merged with Madhav Infra Projects Ltd filed return of income for A Y 2005/06 declaring loss of Rs. 48, 82, 805/- that was accepted & assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. (2) Subsequently in order u/s 263 passed on 25.02.2010 ld. CIT holding order

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, which shall entertain the appeal and decide the same, Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 12 on merits and in accordance with law. The appellant shall place all the materials for consideration before the Tribunal within

MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

condone the delay of 1569 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 9. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting deduction under section 80HHC

CAT COSMETICS AND HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

loss be allowed as per the decision in such appeal. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now 6. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

loss of Rs. 71,74,077/-. The return of income of the assessee trust was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 6,03,14,738/-. The assessee filed rectification ITA Nos. 1830&1831/Ahd/2024 Ash Education Trust vs. DCIT Asst. Years

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

condone the delay of 262 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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

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 of hearing. 3. The assessee vide letter dated 12 June 2022 has also filed the additional ground of appeal which is reproduced as under: That

ASH EDUCATION TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

loss of Rs.71,74,077/-. The return\nof income of the assessee trust was processed under Section 143(1) of the\nAct, disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11\nof the Act, amounting to Rs.6,03,14,738/-. The assessee filed rectification\napplication before the Assessing Officer requesting to accept the return of\nincome filed

ATULKUMAR KIRTILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

loss.” We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice

JAGRUTI SANJAYKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

loss. 9. That ultimately data required for preparing accounts have been made available in the course of this month, March 2019, based on which the accounts are now prepared. 10. That I have made these statement through this affidavit to place on record the correct facts as Shri Soni informed me that explanation regarding the circumstances causing delay in filling

JAGRUTI SANJAYKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

loss. 9. That ultimately data required for preparing accounts have been made available in the course of this month, March 2019, based on which the accounts are now prepared. 10. That I have made these statement through this affidavit to place on record the correct facts as Shri Soni informed me that explanation regarding the circumstances causing delay in filling

SOLEONE TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation, of delay is contrary to the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the appellant's grounds on merits and mechanically dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. It is prayed that the matter be restored for fresh adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

set of facts the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1238 & 1239/Del/2011 in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Woollen Mills vs. ACIT, vide order dated 26.11.2012 has rejected the condonation application of the assessee, by relying on various judgments in the cases of viz. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Sri Venkatesa

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

set of facts the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1238 & 1239/Del/2011 in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Woollen Mills vs. ACIT, vide order dated 26.11.2012 has rejected the condonation application of the assessee, by relying on various judgments in the cases of viz. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Sri Venkatesa

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

set of facts the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1238 & 1239/Del/2011 in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Woollen Mills vs. ACIT, vide order dated 26.11.2012 has rejected the condonation application of the assessee, by relying on various judgments in the cases of viz. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Sri Venkatesa

BHAGWANDAS KANTILAL DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memebr & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

loss. The computation of income of M/s. Amar Steel Industries has been produced before us. However, the ACIT CPC has made addition of remuneration while passing the Intimation under Section 143(1). The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who has deleted the addition of Rs. 2,40,000 as made by the ACIT CPC. The CIT(A) Order

PRISM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1235 & 1236/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2003-04 वष" Prism Industries Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Tb-5, Vrundavan Estate, Vs Income-Tax, Pashabhai Park, Race Course Circle-4, Circle, Baroda Baroda Pan : Aabcp 7162 Q Assessee By : Shri Mj Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement In Court : 10/04/2018 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

loss." 8. We do not deem it necessary to recite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is suffice to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice