JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condoning the delay.\n24. On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the\njudgment of the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28. In\nthat judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred for decision of the\nCourt and the decision

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)

condoning the delay. 24. On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28. In that judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred for decision of the Court and the decision

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

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

delay is condoned in filing the\nappeal.\nPage 3 of 21\nITA No.185/RJT/2025\nBabubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya L/h of Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya\n6. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that the\nassessee Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya (PAN-GDQPS7714N) being an\nindividual filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17,\ndeclaring total

LATE ARJAN KANJI PUJARA SMARK CHARITABLE TRUST BHACHAU,BHACHAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 139 of the Act is condoned (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose of by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay

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

31,000/-, by invoking the provision of section 40A(3) of\nthe Act, being the amount paid in cash by the assessee for buying of petrol and\ndiesel from Vrundavan Petrol Pump, on 13/11/2016, and\n(ii) Disallowance of amortization expenses of Rs.70,71,825/-, claimed, treating\nthe same to be capital expenditure, in view of the provision of section

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

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

OSWAL CHARITIES,JAMNAGAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Oswal Charities Cit(Exemption) Vs. Satish Sadan, Street No.44, Digvijay Ahmedabad - 380015 Plot, Jamnagar- 361005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaato0228Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

delay is condoned appeal heard on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case that the appellant is a Charitable trust established since April 1972. The main object of the Appellant Trust is to carry out charitable activities for the welfare of public in general. The Trust offers yatrikgruh accommodations for General Public with essential amenities along with food supplies. Such

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI

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

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

section 249(3) of Ac. In this connection, the appellant begs to invite your honour's kind attention to the decision to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Kathiji (MST) (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.2. In support of this condonation petition, the assessee also filed her husband’s affidavit duly notarized

SMT. RANI HARERAM SAHANI,KOVAYA, RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ACIT, WARD-2 (4), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

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

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

section 249(3) of Ac. In this connection, the appellant begs to invite your honour's kind attention to the decision to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Kathiji (MST) (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.2. In support of this condonation petition, the assessee also filed her husband’s affidavit duly notarized

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

31,645), which is too low for\nrunning a proprietary firm having turnover of Rs. 1,51,13,862/-.\n5. Any other ground that the Revenue may rise before or during the proceedings before the\nHon'ble ITAT.\n6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the assessing\nofficer

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)

31-10-2017. After receipt of the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 15-11- 2017 u/s. 144C(1) of the Act and duly served on the assessee on 16-11-2017. 3.1. As per Section 144C(2) of the Act, within 30 days of the receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee

SARJAN STRUCTURE,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.413/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Sarjan Structure, Vs. The Dcit/Acit-2(1) Shyam Shikhar Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Liliya Road, Course Ring Road, Amreli (Gujarat)– 365601 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acofs8085K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Bynational Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 28/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 29/12/2019, U/S 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte. Sarjan Structure Amreli

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) byNational Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 28/02/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 29/12/2019, u/s 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grievances raised by the assessee, which, being interconnected, will

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the learned CIT-A deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 5. Next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,54,700/- on account of cash payment under section

JAMNDAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI, MANAVADAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

condone the delay. 23. However, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is only on the ground that the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction on every aspect of this case in terms of Section 245F(2) of the Act and in terms of provision of Chapter XI-A. It is an admitted position that

JAMNADAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI,MANAVADAR vs. DCIT, INT.TAX, , RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

condone the delay. 23. However, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is only on the ground that the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction on every aspect of this case in terms of Section 245F(2) of the Act and in terms of provision of Chapter XI-A. It is an admitted position that