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

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

M/S. KUTCH MANDVI BHATIYA MAHAJAN,MANDV-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, RAJKOT

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

c) In view of the above mentioned facts, it is clear that Appellant had filed its ITR after the due date on 22.03.2017 and Form 10 on 15.09.2016 i.e. before the due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY. 2017-18. Thus, the Appellant does not qualify for exemption u/s 11(2

SHRI DHORAJI NAGRIK SHARAFI AND GRAHAK SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,DHORAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.478/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Dhoraji Nagrik Sharafi & Vs. Income Tax Officer Grahak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward – 1(2)(1), C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Rajkot. Floor, Dr. Radha – Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot- 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaad7775Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

C of Chapter VI-A) where return was filed after due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. In view of the above, it was submitted that the adjustment made by the CPC, Bangalore regarding disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act, in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 25.06.2019, is outside the scope of Section

M/S. KALPATARU CREDIT CO-OPRATIVE SOCIETY,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the matter is set aside to the file of the assessing officer with the above directions

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

119 days in filing the present appeal before us. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby being condoned. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the AO reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act on the basis that the Revenue is in possession of information that

AMRAPAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,AMRAPAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 324/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Amrapar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of C/O., Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Floor, Income Tax – 1, Dr. Radha Krishna Road, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Rajkumar Collage, Rajkot - 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa0819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2026 : 17/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

C- Deduction in respect of certain incomes” unless the assessee furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(1), deduction u/s. 80P was not admissible as per the explicit provision of the Act. It was also noticed that out of total deduction claimed u/s. 80P, the assessee had claimed