SHRI RAVI PARSOTAMBHAI ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 434/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Jetpur – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Amnpa7007Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condonation of delay, are as follows; “In connection with the above appeal the applicant most In connection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully begs to humbly and respectfully begs to state and submit as under: under: 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response 1] The case

RAJENDRASINH RANJITSINH JADEJA,KHAKHADABELA,PADDHARI vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

condone the delay. 6. Brief facts qua the issue, on merit, are that assessee has filed return of income on 03.07.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,56,860/- for the year under consideration. As per the information available with the department and on enquiry, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee has made cash deposit amounting

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the levy of interest charged u/s s wrongly confirmed the levy of interest charged u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 234A/234B/234C/234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the appellant craves to add, amend

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and had filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13, on 25.03.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,070/-. During the year, the assessee has earned

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

VIPUL ARJANBHAI PARMAR,MANGROL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.217/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 बनाम/ Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar Income Tax Officer Vs C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar, Ward – 1, Junagadh 1St Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ditpp9286B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay. 8. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, on merit, are as follows: “1. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts for making the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-on account of unexplained

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

reopened u/s. 263 of the Act and assessment was revised by the Ld.PCIT and directed to make a reassessment after verified claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Hence, the assessment was against the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act should not be denied. The issue was examined by the AO and the assessment order completed. Page

PRATIBHABEN ASHOKKUMAR DAVE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Pratibhaben Ashokumar Dave The Ito, Ward-3(1) Rajkot. “Shiv Urja”, 12-Bhaktinagar Society Vs. Dhebar Road Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent)

reopened assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. As can be noticed from the assessment order, while calculating capital gain on such sale, the ld.AO has recorded that the assessee has agreed to the taxation of the capital gain. Accordingly, the ld.AO worked out capital gain of Rs.1,77,636/- and added to the total income

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

reopened assessment u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That, the Ld. C1T(A) has wrongly Rs. 18,28,550/- confirmed addition of Rs. 32,70,525/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69AoftheI.T.Act,1961. 3. That, the Ld. C1T (A) has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 3. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is that assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,51,082/- on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, which is exempted under section 10(37) of the Income tax Act 1961. However, assessing officer

SHREE JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT-CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. On merit, I note that while passing assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.12,31,766/- on account of 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by this Division Bench of this Tribunal

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI

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

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

condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on the Principles of Natural Justice. 4.1. On merits, the assessment was reopened

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ACIT, WARD-2 (4), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

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

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

condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on the Principles of Natural Justice. 4.1. On merits, the assessment was reopened

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. ITA No. 789/RJT/2025 A.Y 17-18 Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati 4. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the facts of the assessee’s case that assessee trust has filed its original return of income on 13.09.2017, declaring nil income, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings under section