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)

delayed by 147 days (approx.), and hence ld CIT(E) rejected application of assessee in Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Act, as not maintainable and also cancelled the provisional approval granted in Form No.10AC, under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation

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

147 days. In case of both the appeals, the assessee has not filed the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the absence of petition for condonation of delay, respective delay should not be condoned in both these appeals. 7. Therefore, I find that in these two appeals, no justification has been submitted for condonation for delay in filing appeals

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

147 days. In case of both the appeals, the assessee has not filed the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the absence of petition for condonation of delay, respective delay should not be condoned in both these appeals. 7. Therefore, I find that in these two appeals, no justification has been submitted for condonation for delay in filing appeals

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 1 | Page

delayed by 147 days (approx.), and hence ld CIT(E) rejected application of assessee in Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Act, as not maintainable and also cancelled the provisional approval granted in Form No.10AC, under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation

SURENDRABA RAGHUVIRSINH CHUDASAMA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income tax Act, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee was not effectively pursuing the appeal. Therefore, ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that delay may condoned

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

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 08.01.2024, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated

BHISTI EXPORTS ,VERAVAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, VERAVAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 15.11.2017 and 09.11.2018 respectively. 2. These two appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 225 days. The assessee moved two separate petitions for condonations of delay

BHISTI EXPORTS ,VERAVAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, VERAVAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 15.11.2017 and 09.11.2018 respectively. 2. These two appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 225 days. The assessee moved two separate petitions for condonations of delay

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

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

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

SAVAN KISHORKUMAR KANANI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DWARKA

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.277/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee to adjudicate on merit. ITA No. 277/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Savan K Kanani 8. On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being

VINODBHAI RAVJIBHAI SAKHIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.182/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vinod Ravjibhai Sakhiya, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Shivam, 4-Radha Nagar, B/H. Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360 004 Bhavan, Race Course, Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Blqps 0262 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

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 28.12.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 06.12.2018. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal is barred

SHRI MANDORANA VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED ,VILLAGE-MANDORANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VERAVAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29.02.2024 and 29.03.2023. ITA Nos. 870 & 872/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 19-20 & 18-19 Sh. Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Ltd. 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals, are common and identical; therefore, both these appeals have been clubbed and heard together

SHRI MANDORANA VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED ,JND-VERAVAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VERAVAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29.02.2024 and 29.03.2023. ITA Nos. 870 & 872/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 19-20 & 18-19 Sh. Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Ltd. 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals, are common and identical; therefore, both these appeals have been clubbed and heard together