NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10 for the A.Y. 2014-15." 28. Mr. Vora, the learned counsel is right in his submission that a fair and dispassionate view of the facts ought to have persuaded the respondent, who possesses wide discretion in the matter under section 119 of the Act, to condone the delay and allow the assessee to avail the said exemption under section

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10 for the A.Y. 2014-15." 28. Mr. Vora, the learned counsel is right in his submission that a fair and dispassionate view of the facts ought to have persuaded the respondent, who possesses wide discretion in the matter under section 119 of the Act, to condone the delay and allow the assessee to avail the said exemption under section

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAIYEDPURA SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not been condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed. 18. In case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , TDS, CPC, SURAT

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause.\nAccordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not\nbeen condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the\ncase. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed.\n17.\nIn the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed.\n18.\nIn case

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause.\nAccordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, delay has not\nbeen condoned; it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the\ncase. Hence, the other grounds are not discussed.\n17.\nIn the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed.\n18.\nIn case

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases and confers jurisdiction upon the court to admit any application or any appeal after the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the appellant or applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring such appeal or application within the prescribed period. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025

BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 7. At the outset, Shri Mehul Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, stated that technical issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter. The ld Counsel stated that ground No.3 raised by the assessee relates to the fact that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

10. Considering above circumstances as well as the law on the issue, I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these two appeals. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

10. Considering above circumstances as well as the law on the issue, I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these two appeals. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay