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

MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV (MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

Section 5 is whether the assessee acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. From the petition for condonation of delay, reproduced above, we find that a part delay in filing, the appeal has occurred due to mistake committed by the Advocate/CA of the assessee, for which the assessee Page 11 of 14 ITA No. 570&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay

MAYURBHAI HIRABHAI SINDHAV ( MALDHARI),RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

Section 5 is whether the assessee acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. From the petition for condonation of delay, reproduced above, we find that a part delay in filing, the appeal has occurred due to mistake committed by the Advocate/CA of the assessee, for which the assessee Page 11 of 14 ITA No. 570&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay

G. C FOUNDATION,RAJKOT vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 266/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2023-24) G. C. Foundation Cit(Exemption) Vs. Survey No. 558/2558, P1 558 P2, B/H Income Tax Office, Vejalpur, Real Ceramics, Old Ghuntu Road, Rajkot-36001 Thorala, Rajkot - 363641 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetg0610J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80G(5)(iii) was rejected on account of technical ground being delay in filing of application and that there were no powers with Ld. CIT(E) to condone such delay. 4

ARJAN LILA GORANIYA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by applying the provision of section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. section 249(4

KHADAKALA SEVA SAHKARI MANADLI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (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 : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging E interest U/s 234B of Rs. 16,140/-. The Ld CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. The same needs cancellation. 5. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in charging interest U/s 234C of Rs. 5

SAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench

SHAILESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR., SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 271(1) (C ) of the Act. Shri Anish Hasan Bakhai ITA No.132 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2017-18) 2 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 442/RJT/2024 [u/s. 271(1)(c) Penalty Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench

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)

4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence, provisions of section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming

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)

4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence, provisions of section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

condonation is made out for explaining the delay in this hopelessly time-barred appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. 12. Therefore, ld DR stated that since the order passed by the learned PCIT has been merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), hence, present

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 5 of Limitation Act, if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. ITA Nos. 200 & 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO 8. I am of the view that

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 5 of Limitation Act, if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. ITA Nos. 200 & 201/Rjt/2025 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO 8. I am of the view that

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

5 used to look the taxation matters of the entire group, was feeling severe illness and eventually he died, is not a ‘sufficient cause’, to condone such delay, therefore, the delay should not be condoned and these appeals of the assessees should be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that these three

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

5 used to look the taxation matters of the entire group, was feeling severe illness and eventually he died, is not a ‘sufficient cause’, to condone such delay, therefore, the delay should not be condoned and these appeals of the assessees should be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that these three

ARVINDKUMAR DAYALAL CHAVDA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (2) (3), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 841/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(2)(3), Rajkot 3 – Nilay, Maruti Nagar, Opp. New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Krishnam Appartment, Airport Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzpc0502D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kumar Pandya, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

4 Appeal u/s 246(A) before CIT(A) With 30/06/2024 945 days delay with Delay Condone Application by Assessee delay condone Application. 5 Order u/s 250. Video Conference for Oral 24/10/2024 116 days Evidence is requested n Appeal which is not given by Income Tax Department before issue of Order u/s 250. The Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that

SHRI SHARDAGRAM ALUMNI EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

section 80G is hereby cancelled. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(E), assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was delay in filing Form-10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act, therefore, Ld.CIT(E) has denied the approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that

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)

4. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that such huge delay should not be condoned, as the assessee has completely failed to explain the sufficient cause. The 2 Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar vs. ITO mistake of the advocate should not be considered as a sufficient cause