STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

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

condoning the delay &\ndismissing the appeal ex-party.\n2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short\npayment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential interest of Rs.3,420/-\ncharged on same, resulting in erroneous demand of Rs.14,170/-.\n3. The deductees have received TDS certificates from the appellant, which\nthey have used to claim credit

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,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

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,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

BHARATBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Bharatbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 392, Nishal Faliu, Nava Haripura, Ward- 2(4), Sajod, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bharuch, Gujarat – 393020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bpppp4227M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashutosh P. Nanavaty, Ca Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 249(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 4.The Chartered Accountant at Surat was also not having any experience or exposure in attending appeal before CIT(A) therefore said Chartered Accountant has not filed any Miscellaneous Application or Affidavit for Condonation of Delay

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

condoning the delay &\ndismissing the appeal ex-party.\n2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short\npayment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential interest of Rs.3,420/-\ncharged on same, resulting in erroneous demand of Rs.14,170/-.\n3. The deductees have received TDS certificates from the appellant, which\nthey have used to claim credit

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

249. The ld. A.R submitted that the issue that the first proviso of Sec. 12A(2) was to be given a retrospective effect had already been looked into and adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin in the following cases:- (i) SNDP Yogam v. Asstt. DIT (Exemption) [2016] 161 ITD 1/68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.) (ii) Santhula

VIJAYBHAI BOOKBINDER,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(10), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is allowed and ground No

2)(b) of the Act\nempowered the Income Tax Authorities to condone the delay if there is any\nhardship to the party. The observation of Id CIT(A) is not correct. The Id\nCIT(A) is empowered to consider the plea of condonation of delay in filing\nappeal under section 249

I K CORPORATION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. These two appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 20 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the physical copy of the orders passed by NFAC, Delhi

I K CORPORATION ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. These two appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 20 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that the physical copy of the orders passed by NFAC, Delhi

VEHEVAL MILK PRODUCER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "143(3)", "144B", "80P(d)", "249(3)", "249(2)"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred