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

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

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

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 234A and 234B may be recomputed based on th revised income. • Relief may kindly be granted in the interest of equity, justice, and fair play. • Set aside the appellate order dated 17/12/2024 passed by CIT(A), Ahmedabad-7. • Delete the additions made u/s 69A and u/s 44AD amounting to ?10,87,340/-. • Restore the matter

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1), 272A(1) (d) and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C,234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings

BHAVESH ISHWARLAL PANCHASARA,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234B, 234C and 234D of I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad- in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 48 days in terms

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

condoning the delay in filling appeal before him, even though the appellant is suffered from reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider that provisions of Section 144C was not complied by the Ld AO and thus the Order passed by the Ld AO was itself

RAFIKBHAI AJIJBHAI VIRANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT NFAC INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Rafikbhai Ajijbhai Virani बनाम The Assessment Unit, National Steet No.2, Near Navnala, Faceless Assessment Center, Income /Vs. Gulabnagar Tari Hanuman Tax Department Road, Jamnagar-361007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ascpv 1519 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sankar Bakshi, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 18.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 19.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “Reopening U/S 148A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) 1. The Learned The National Faceless Appeal Centre [“The Cit(A)”] & The Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“The Ao”) Erred In Fact & In Law In Initiating Proceedings U/S 148 Of The Act Without Issuing Notice U/S Ita No. 141/Rjt/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

234B of the Act. 11. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, substitute, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 181 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating

BILIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,MORBI, RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B and 234C of the I.T. Act. The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or withdraw any ground of appeals." 3. At the outset the registry of this Court has bring to our notice that this appeal filed after limitation of 100 days. That an application filed for condonation of delay along with the appeal. That the reason

P THREE CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAKHATRANA vs. ITO, WARD-2, BHUJ, BHUJ

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "44AB", "250" ], "issues": "The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal and whether the assessee's explanation for the delay (due to an accountant's oversight in checking emails) constituted sufficient cause for condonation

DILIPSINNH GAMBHIRSNH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

condone the delay and, therefore, we\ncondone the delay of 153 days and admit the assessee's appeal for hearing\non merits.\n5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed a return of\nincome for A.Y. 2017-18. The present case were initiated for the reopen\nthat the assessee has deposited cash

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

234b, 234c It Is Totally Wrong, Unwarranted, Unjustified And Bad In Law. 6. Your Applicant Reserves The Right In Addition Or Alteration In The Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.” 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 363 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported

SHRI DHARMESH BHAILAL VAGHELA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3 (1)(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the matter is being set aside to the ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 169/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Shri Dharmesh Bhailal Vaghela vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Tax effect relating to each Ground of Grounds of appeal appeal 1 That, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without affording

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.

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 the assessee purchased cheque/DD in lieu of cash to the tune

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

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 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

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