KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

9. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in calculating not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,58,271/-. based on irrelevant consideration. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation. 10. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction

KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

9. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in calculating not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/- based on irrelevant consideration. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation. 10. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction

KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

9. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in calculating not allowing deduction of Rs. 2,43,736/- based on irrelevant consideration. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation. 10. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing deduction

ARVINDKUMAR DAYALAL CHAVDA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 841/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(2)(3), Rajkot 3 – Nilay, Maruti Nagar, Opp. New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Krishnam Appartment, Airport Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzpc0502D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kumar Pandya, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

139(1) 20/07/2019 Within Time 2 Order u/s 143(1) 28-08- 39 days No 2019 Demand 3 Order u/s 154 29/10/2021 832 days delay from Income Tax Department after issued of order u/s 143(1) with Demand of Rs.87,830/- 4 Appeal u/s 246(A) before CIT(A) With 30/06/2024 945 days delay with Delay Condone Application by Assessee

LATE ARJAN KANJI PUJARA SMARK CHARITABLE TRUST BHACHAU,BHACHAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

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

9-2-1978, the CBDT had authorized the ITO to accept a belated audit report after recording reasons in cases where some delay has occurred for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 4. Accordingly, the CBDT issued Circular No. 10/2019 circulated through F.No. 197/55/2018-ITA-1 in supersession of earlier circular/Instruction issued in this regard, and with a view to expedite

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeal, therefore, assessee`s appeal may be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld.CIT

SORTHIYA AHIR GNATINO UTARO,BHAVNATH, JUNAGADH vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

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

section 13(9) of the Act exemption u/s. 11(2) is allowed only if Form 10 is e-filed before the I.T.A No. 104/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Sorthiya Ahir Gnatino Utaro vs. ADIT(CPC) due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. As the assessee filed Form 10 after the due date, but along with

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE DCIT (CPC) , BANGALORE

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

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

139(1) of the Act, Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru vide its communication dated 02-03-2016 intimated the assessee that the Audit Report in Form 10B is not filed alongwith the Return of Income as per Section 12A(1)(B) of the Act. The assesse was ensured to file the corrected Return, incorporating the details of such Audit, failing

MITESHKUMAR DAYALJIBHAI PABARI,BHATIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

139(1) of the I.T Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was flagged under Risk Management Strategy consequent upon dissemination of certain High Risk Non-filer cases on the insight portal of the department. As per the information during the year under consideration, the assessee entered in to the following financial transactions: Description of Information Amount (Rs.) Purchase of immovable property

CHIMANLAL BHUTALAL SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 126/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (208-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/.O Ca Himansu Gandhi, 10Th Floor, D Tax (International Taxation)-1, Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Room N.312, Ito, Amruta Mills Compaund, Lower Parle – 400013 Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M. G. Road, Gujarat – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fdmps3665D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

section 271AAC(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or hearing. alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 11. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes please attach application seeking condonation of delay) 3. At the outset, that the appeal

HANIF OSMAN RAVDA,SITLACHAWK OPP. REHEMANI MASJID ,MEMANWAD MEMANWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) , PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.447/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hanif Osman Ravda Vs. Ito Ward 2 (3), Sitla Chawk, Rehemani Masjid, Porbandar - 360575 Memanwad, Porbandar – 360575 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepr8023N (Assessee) (Respondent)

delay is condoned in filing the appeal. 4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The sole issue involved in the present appeal, relates to addition of Rs. 13,71,365/- made by the assessing officer as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. Briefly stated the facts of the present case

SHRI SAJADIALI SARDAR PATEL SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.607/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Ito Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 / 04/2025

9 SCC 1], and reinforced by judgments from the Kerala and Madras High Courts. A. Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: In Customs Commissioner v. Dileep Kumar and Company, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the burden of proving eligibility for exemption lies on the assessee. The Court emphasized that

SHRI DHIRENDRA NARBHERAM SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 (3) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

delay. Accordingly, we condone the same in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.902/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust The Ito (Exemption) बनाम Plot No.1, Dc-2 Ward-1 Rambaug Road Rajkot. Vs. Ward-6A, Adipur. Pan : Aabts 1102 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Chennai[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 02.05.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Intimation Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Cpc) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:

condonation of delay in filing the audit report for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The ld CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to fulfil, the fundamental requirement of timely audit report submission therefore, the adjustment made by the assessing officer(CPC), concerning the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act, was confirmed

SHREE CHALALA VI KA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-AMRELI., RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Ccountant Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 358/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Shree Chalala Vi Ka Seva Sahakari Vs. The Ito Ward 3(1)(4), Mandali Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Chalala Haveli Road, Road, Dhari Amreli - 365630 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatas2273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 31/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: - 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Confirming Action Of Cpc, Bangalore In Disallowing Claim Of Deduction Of Rs. 3,51,828/- U/S Sop Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Sec. 143(1)(A)(V) Do Not Provide For Denial Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act When The Return Of Income Is Not Filed Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act But U/S 139(4). 2. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Upholding Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustment To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Shree Chalala Vikas Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd.

section; (i) 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.8,06,042/- (ii) 80P(2)(a)(iv) - Rs.1,06,063/- (iii) 80P(2)(d) - Rs.3,51,828/- 4. Thereafter, the appellant was in receipt of communication for not granting deduction of Rs. 1263 933/- claimed in the return of income u/s 80P of the Act, stating that the assessee not filed Return within

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No.340/RJT/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21 Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Trust vs. ITO 10. Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted before the Bench, the relevant dates, which are important to adjudicate the issue, which reads as follows: Shri

JAYDEEP THAKARSHIBHAI BADRAKIA,MORBI vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAYDEEP T BADRAKIA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESHBHAI SURESHBHAI UNTAVADIYA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons