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 40A

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

condone the delay.\n7. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a\nprivate limited company.The assessee- company had filed return of income for\nthe assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 13/10/2017, declaring total loss of\nRs.2,36,06,293/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS.\nThe assessment was finalized

SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 448/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

Section 249(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Th contents of the petition for condoning the delay are reproduced below

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.

delay is hereby condoned. 8. Now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 9. That the Assessee is in appeal before us. Ld. AR of the Assessee has drown our attention to the first para of Ld. PCIT’s order in which Ld. PCIT has mentioned that the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the assessment

SHRI NARESH RAMJI BHANUSHALI,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 295/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri Naresh Ramji The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Bhanushali Ward-1, Gandhidham Vs. T. No.1, Plot No.257, Ward 8A, Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aewpb8042H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri V. J. Boricha, D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Rajkot (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Gandhidham Under Section

2. There is a delay in filing the instant appeal for about 13 days. The same has sought to be justified on the plea of delay in obtaining documents and brief from earlier representative which has not been controverted by the Ld. DR. Hence, the delay is condoned. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties