BHAVESHBHAI HARIBHAI KANANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.233/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani Income Tax Officer Plot No. E211, Gidc Phase-2, Vs Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar Dared, Jamnagar, Gujarat - 361008 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk5085F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay. 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding in addition of Rs.39,82,206/- made by Id.AO by estimating profit @4% on gross sales turnover and in adopting profit rate of 4% without considering nature of business, past history

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

delay is condoned in filing the appeal. 6.Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee has e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs.2,41,110/- and agriculture income of Rs.5,60,400/- on 18.03.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1.T. Act, accepting

CHINTAN DWARKADAS CHOTAI,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

section 80G. If such person makes a claim that he is not well aware of the income tax law and procedure, it cannot be accepted. Further, lack of knowledge cannot be an excuse for ignoring statutory notices and orders. This explanation cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of more than 160

SHREEJI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

delay is hereby condoned. 8. Now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 9. That the Assessee is in appeal before us. Ld. AR of the Assessee has drown our attention to the first para of Ld. PCIT’s order in which Ld. PCIT has mentioned that the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the assessment

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)

160/-. It is thereafter the assessee uploaded Audit report in Form 10B by e-filing on 16.04.2019. 3. Aggrieved against the intimation order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 13.06.2020 with a delay of 1519 days. The Ld. NFAC condoned the delay in filing the appeal, however decided the appeal against the assessee on the ground that

ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF INDUBHAI PAREKH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE - RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 940/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Alumni Associa"On Of Indubhai Parekh School Vs. The Cit(Exemp"On), Ahmedabad Of Architecture, Rajkot- 360005, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahta9691E (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filling the present appeal. 4.1 The appellant Trust was constituted under the Deed of declaration of Trust dated 11/12/2019 with the charitable object of imparting education. Soon after formation of the trust, the appellant Trust was granted registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 w.e.f 13/02/2020 by the Commissioner, which was before

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

160 taxmann.ocom 83 (Jhark) vi) CIT Vs. Independent Media P.Ltd., (2012) 25 taxmann.com 276 (Del); vii) Shri Arif Vs. ACIT, ITA No.976/Bang/2022 (ITAT-Bang) order dated 126.1.2023; viii) Manoj Aggarwal Vs. DCIT, (2008) 113 ITD 0377 (Del) 19. On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the retired partners nowhere associated with the assessee-firm and since

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

160 taxmann.ocom 83 (Jhark) vi) CIT Vs. Independent Media P.Ltd., (2012) 25 taxmann.com 276 (Del); vii) Shri Arif Vs. ACIT, ITA No.976/Bang/2022 (ITAT-Bang) order dated 126.1.2023; viii) Manoj Aggarwal Vs. DCIT, (2008) 113 ITD 0377 (Del) 19. On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the retired partners nowhere associated with the assessee-firm and since

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delayering of funds in the process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated these sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The ‘Angadiya/shroff’ have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms. vi. The “Angadiya” is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to monetary transactions is “shroff

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

160 taxmann.com 357 (Delhi HC);\n• Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC);\n• Dipesh Lalchand Shah (2022) 143 taxmann.com 419 (Guj. HC);\n• Kutch District Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (2024) 159\ntaxmann.com 347 (Rajkot Trib.);\n• Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhameliya (2023) 151 taxmann.com 493 (Surat\nTrib.);\n• Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel (2023) 150 taxmann.com 71 (Surat Trib

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

delayering of funds in the process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated these sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The 'Angadiya/shroff' have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms.\nvi. The \"Angadiya\" is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to monetary transactions is \"shroff

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

delayering of funds in\nthe process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated\nthese sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The\n'Angadiya/shroff' have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms.\nvi. The \"Angadiya\" is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to\nmonetary transactions

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delayering of funds in\nthe process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has\ntreated these sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed\nincome. The ‘Angadiya/shroff' have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms.\nvi. The "Angadiya” is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to\nmonetary transactions is “shroff

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue