ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

C) & 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). , 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA 147, 148/Rjt/25 & 227, 228/Rjt/22 Arham Enterprise v. ITO 2. Since, in these four appeals are Since, in these four appeals are filed by the same assessee, and in the appeals filed by the same assessee

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

C) & 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). , 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA 147, 148/Rjt/25 & 227, 228/Rjt/22 Arham Enterprise v. ITO 2. Since, in these four appeals are Since, in these four appeals are filed by the same assessee, and in the appeals filed by the same assessee

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

C) & 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). , 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA 147, 148/Rjt/25 & 227, 228/Rjt/22 Arham Enterprise v. ITO 2. Since, in these four appeals are Since, in these four appeals are filed by the same assessee, and in the appeals filed by the same assessee

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

C) & 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). , 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA 147, 148/Rjt/25 & 227, 228/Rjt/22 Arham Enterprise v. ITO 2. Since, in these four appeals are Since, in these four appeals are filed by the same assessee, and in the appeals filed by the same assessee

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

C' Bench, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Garg\nBros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT [ITA Nos.2519 to 2521/Kol/2017, order\ndated 18.04.2018], wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble\nTribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under:\n\"3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having

DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

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. 239/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2008-09) बनाम Damjibhai Lekharjibhai Thavrani Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Vs. Ito Ward – 1 Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Income Tax Office, Bhootnath Rajkumar College, Chamber, Rajkot 360001 Junagadh – 362001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aeypt7701B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

c) of the Act. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 55 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) and 253

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)

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 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

SHRI NARENDRA DHARAMDAS GIDWANI,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ADDL. CIT, NFAC, , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. After hearing the rival contention of both the parties, we perused the reason for late filing of appeal as submitted in the application for condonation of delay. That we find that there is sufficient cause for filing of the appeal not in time. There is no mistake of the assessee

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANTILAL CHHATRALIA,GUJARAT vs. ASSESING OFICER, RAJKOT

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

253(5) of the Act empowers\nthe ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a \"sufficient\ncause\" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice,\nwe take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 763 days.\nWe observed that the appellant is a resident individual

BALVANTRAI AMRUTBHAI VYAS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Appeal is dismissed as “not pressed

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

c) of the Act was received by my tax consultant on his e-mail id i.e. jsshukla_2008@yahoo.com, wherein it was Page 2 of 5 Dff Balvantrai M. Vyas mentioned that the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act was passed and hence I was show caused as to why penalty should not be levied in my case. That thereafter

BHARAT NATHABHAI BARAD,VERAVAL, GIR SOMNATH vs. ITO WARD-4, VERAVAL

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.411/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharat Nathabhai Barad Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Vinesh Enterprise, Ward-4, Village: Savani, Tal.: Veraval, Veraval. Veraval - Kodinar Highway, Dist.: Gir Somnath-362 268. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avjpb6301K (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay supported by affidavit. The relevant part of the affidavit are reproduced herewith. “2. In the first appellate proceedings, appeal has been decided ex-parte and dismissed in limine for want of prosecution by the Hon'ble CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre vide order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 11.06.2022. 3. Considering the date of order

UMIYAJI STEEL INDUSTRIES,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

The appeal is DISMISSED

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 12.03.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 11.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as followed: ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel

KALPESH CHATURBHAI RAIYANI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15-2016-17) Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8-New Meghani Nagar Corner, Sahakar Vs. 1(1)(1), Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Rajkot - 360002 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aszpr8968H (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2025 : 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J.M.: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 – 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.06.2024/06.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, On 28.03.2022/ 29.03.2024. Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows (Ita No. 143- Rjt-25):

6. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in passing assessment order u/s 147 r. w s. 144 of the act, which is contrary to the provision of the act and hence illegal, invalid and void. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 7. Ld. AO erred

KALPESH CHATURBHAI RAIYANI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15-2016-17) Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8-New Meghani Nagar Corner, Sahakar Vs. 1(1)(1), Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Rajkot - 360002 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aszpr8968H (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2025 : 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J.M.: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 – 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.06.2024/06.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, On 28.03.2022/ 29.03.2024. Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows (Ita No. 143- Rjt-25):

6. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in passing assessment order u/s 147 r. w s. 144 of the act, which is contrary to the provision of the act and hence illegal, invalid and void. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 7. Ld. AO erred

KALPESH CHATURBHAI RAIYANI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15-2016-17) Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8-New Meghani Nagar Corner, Sahakar Vs. 1(1)(1), Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Rajkot - 360002 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aszpr8968H (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2025 : 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J.M.: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 – 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.06.2024/06.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, On 28.03.2022/ 29.03.2024. Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows (Ita No. 143- Rjt-25):

6. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in passing assessment order u/s 147 r. w s. 144 of the act, which is contrary to the provision of the act and hence illegal, invalid and void. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 7. Ld. AO erred