GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

delay in filing the appeals, for which condonation was sought and granted.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT's orders were not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view, and the conditions for invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 were not met. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's orders.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

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)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and had filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13, on 25.03.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,78,070/-. During the year, the assessee has earned

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHRI CHINTAN KANJIBHAI KATARIYA,ANJAR-KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had made substantial cash payments to labourers towards site expenses. However, on verification of bills, vouchers etc. the Assessing Officer observed that certain payments were made in cash below Rs. 20,000/- and some of the payments were supported only by self-made vouchers

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

MANISH PUNJABHAI ODEDRA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

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

condone the delay.\n6. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The return\nof income was filed by the assessee on 30th September, 2015, electronically\ndeclaring total income at Rs. 3,01,200/-. The returned income was processed u/s\n143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961.Later on, the assessee`s case

SEASTEM LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT CIR - 1,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 334/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Seastem Limited, Jamnagar Vs. Acit, Cir-1, Jamnagar 1 Avani Appartment, - Sarusection Road Income Tax Office, Jamnagar – 361001 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahcs9428G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

40,06,620/- (Rs. Forty Lacs Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Only) 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 29.12.2019 of the AO, in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), (NFAC) Rajkot. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal with following observation: “6.2 Surely 271B is a deterrent provision and must be read construed

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1),RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Apex Irrigation 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.4,97,182/- being the duty draw back, pertaining to AY 2018-19 offer to tax in the subsequent year when

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)

40,37,155/- u/s. 271(1)(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

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE DCIT (CPC) , BANGALORE

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, however decided the appeal against the assessee on the ground that Form 10B was not filed along with the Return of Income. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming

ADITYA TRACTORS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 07.03.2024 & 12.12.2023, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 855 & 352/Rjt/2024 Aditya Tractors vs. ITO 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel

ADITYA TRACTORS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 07.03.2024 & 12.12.2023, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 855 & 352/Rjt/2024 Aditya Tractors vs. ITO 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel

SMT. HEENABEN MAHESHBHAI GADHETHARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (1) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2017-18 Smt. Heenaben Maheshbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1) Gadhethariya Rajkot. Flat B/21, Copper Elegance Nr.Ambika Township, Mavdi Police Ground Rajkot, Gujarat Pan : Ahwpg 7174 J

section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, to meet ends of justice, we condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merit. 4. The grounds raised in the appeal reads as under: “1. On the facts and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in sustaining

SHRI ASHOKBHAI BHAISINH JADEJA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal, in the interest of justice. 5. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,85,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny in order to examine “cash deposit during demonetization

PRAVINBHAI AMARSHIBHAI PARMAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

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

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

40, Shantiniketan Society, 7th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Balaji University Road, Rajkot Course Road, Rajkot, 360001 Gujarat-360005 PAN/GIR No.: AEOPP3550Q (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri R. K. Takvani, AR राज" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/04/2026

HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 625/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 1(1)(1),/Rkt. 360360.Gujarat It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Axupt8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026

section 144B of the I.T. Act, on dated 12/09/2022. Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1. Addition of Rs. 7,40,673/- u/s 40(a)(ia) & Variation u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs. 12,508/- The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 25 days

SHRI NATHALAL ARJANBHAI NAGESHRI,PATAN vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

40 days. The Assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and vitiated due to violation of the principle of natural justice.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It was held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and did not discuss the assessee's case