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

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

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)

24,48,100/- for opening balance of cash for want of source and treating the same as undisclosed sources.” 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 46/Rjt/2025, for Assessment Year 2014-15, are as follows: “1. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made

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)

24,48,100/- for opening balance of cash for want of source and treating the same as undisclosed sources.” 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 46/Rjt/2025, for Assessment Year 2014-15, are as follows: “1. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made

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

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 3. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is that assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,51,082/- on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, which is exempted under section 10(37) of the Income tax Act 1961. However, assessing officer

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 1444 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed return of Income on 30-03-2016 showing NIL income. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny and the assessment was completed by the AO and remaining income after claim of deduction

BADIANI PRATAP JETHALAL (HUF),JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(2), JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.44/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Badiani Pratap Jethalal Vs. The Income Tax Oficer, 1St Floor, Morden Market, Pandit Ward-2(2) Nehru Marg, Jamnagar-361110 Near Ambar Cinema, Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabhb4073P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 4. At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) fixed the cases for hearing on 09.02.2021 by issuing notice on 25.01.2021. However, thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) issued further notices. However, since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) was pleased to pass an ex-parte order dismissing

SAKINABAI SAIFUDDIN MAKATI,JAMNAGAR vs. AO, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, /Vs. C-2/333 Gidc Shanker Tekri, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar, Aaykar Udyog Nagar, Udyog Nagar S.O. Bhawan, Jamnagar-361 005 Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatpv770N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 10(10D) of IT Act and properly disclosed in the return on income filed by the assessee.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is barred by limitation by 591 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons

SHRI VIPULBHAI YOGESHKUMAR TELI,CHALALA VILLAGE, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay is condoned. 4. On merit, the solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.15,00,000/-, cash deposit in bank account. 5. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

SHREE JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT-CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. On merit, I note that while passing assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.12,31,766/- on account of 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by this Division Bench of this Tribunal

KUMAR VANJANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFIVER WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 275/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing)

delay of 29 days, is condoned in filing the appeal. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well on fact in upholding, addition made by ld.assessing officer by adopting profit rate of 4% without considering nature of business, facts and circumstances of the case and comparative cases

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.

24 pages, in which several judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and ITAT are cited. The judgements referred by the Ld. AR for the Assessee are as follows, 1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT, 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC). 2. Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. Vs. CBDT, 52 taxmann.com 152 (Bombay High Court) 3. Vijayeta Buildcon

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

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

24,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee company had entered into certain specified domestic transactions whose value exceeded Rs. 5 Crores with related party u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act and also Chartered Accountant’s report u/s. 92E of the Act on international/domestic transactions. Therefore the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR RAMNIKLAL DOSHI,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Vs. Income Tax Officer Doshi Ward-2, Surendranagar B-601, Retreat, Near Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpd2297E (Assessee) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 7. So far merits of the case are concerned, the relevant material facts of the assessee`s case, are as follows. The assessee had filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12, on 20.09.2011, declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The return of income, was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later

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)

24,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed wrongly initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) ha wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings