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:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an intimation order passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019. Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. ITO Grounds

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable. 2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(i) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable. 2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(i) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 249(3) of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

section 80G of the Act, within the time period of, at least six months, prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencements of its activities, whichever is earlier. The time limits prescribed therein is mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 15.03.2024 & 13.06.2024, which in turn arise out of intimation orders passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019 & 01.05.2020; respectively. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.200/Rjt/2025

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 15.03.2024 & 13.06.2024, which in turn arise out of intimation orders passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019 & 01.05.2020; respectively. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.200/Rjt/2025

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

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

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

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