JAYPRAKASH BHOVANBHAI JAGANI HUF,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shri Jayprakash Bhovanbhai Jagani Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1) (Huf) Rajkot. Block No.1001, Rajdhani Apartment Opp: Purhkardham, University Road Rajkot 360 005. Pan : Aaghj 5696 F (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

condone the delay. 4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The Return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, was e-filed by the assessee on 21/02/2018, with returned income at Rs. 9,450/-, claiming exempt agriculture income of Rs. 4,83,289/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny

JYOTSHNA BHIKHUBHAI VADHER,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.36/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jyotshna Bhikhubhai Vadher The Ito, Ward-2(4) बनाम Madhav Park Porbandar. Rokadiya Hanuman Road Vs. Khapat, Porbandar-360575 (Guj) Pan : Aempv 5898M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 20.11.2024 is bad in law as well as on the facts because Ld. CIT(A) without considering the merits for condoning the delay in filling appeal originally. As the original appeal was filed belated only by 44

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD- 3, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 153/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 Shri Bharat Singh, I.T.O., Kalyanpur (Kondh), Vs. Ward-3, Kondh, Surendranagar. Dhrangadra-363310. Pan: Catps9626P

condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, we admit the appeal preferred by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the same on merit. 4. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO for Rs. 4,44,784/- only. 5. The assessee

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

condoning the delay of 126 days in filing of the present appeal. On jurisdiction 4. On jurisdiction, the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. However, we observe that in the instant set of facts, there was a substantial cash deposit made by the assessee in his bank account. Further, the assessee has been

SHRI DARSHIT BAKULBHAI KOTHARI,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, RAJKOT

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

delay in filing the appeal is hereby being condoned. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the AO received information that the assessee had deposited cash/credit of ₹ 52,44,345/- with I.T.A No. 300/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Shri Darshit Bakulbhai Kothari vs. ITO Development Credit Bank Ltd (DCB), Rajkot Branch during the impugned

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Section 292C, he is liable to explain the noting in the impounded diary. 42.The assessee submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the statement of Shri Bhupendra Balubhai Patel recorded u/s 133A of the Act dated 03.01.2019, was a non-connected party, as he is neither subjected to survey action nor he is owner of the premises surveyed from which

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Section 292C, he is liable to explain the noting in the impounded diary. 42.The assessee submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the statement of Shri Bhupendra Balubhai Patel recorded u/s 133A of the Act dated 03.01.2019, was a non-connected party, as he is neither subjected to survey action nor he is owner of the premises surveyed from which

SHRI SHAILESH KHODABHAI TALAVIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(5), RAJKOT

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter I.T.A No. 42/Rjt/20219 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 2 Shri Shailesh Khodabhai Talaviya vs. ITO referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2008- 09. 2. This appeal is filed with the delay of 16 months. The Affidavit filed by the Assessee is as follows: Affidavit

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non- disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal- plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

SHRI SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR KUNDAL,KUNDAL, TALUKA: - BHARWALA, DISTRICT: -BOTAD vs. THE DCIT/ACIT(CPC),, BANGALORE

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

44,340/-, in the status of AOP/BOI. The assessee received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act computing income of " 3,80,999/- by way of not granting deduction claimed under section 11 of the Act. The reason for the said adjustments mentioned in the said intimation was that the audit report in Form 10B was not e-filed

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

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

section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 08.02.2021, calling for the details and information on the issue on which the case was re-opened. But the assessee has again failed to e-furnish any information/ reply / details and supporting documents. The main issue involved in this case, which formed basis for initiation of proceedings

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. 9. Here the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on two counts namely exempt Agricultural income treated as income from I.T.A Nos. 44 to 46/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 Page No 8 M/s. Champion Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT other sources and addition on account of unexplained/unsecured loans. In this case also, the assessee before

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. 9. Here the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on two counts namely exempt Agricultural income treated as income from I.T.A Nos. 44 to 46/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 Page No 8 M/s. Champion Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT other sources and addition on account of unexplained/unsecured loans. In this case also, the assessee before

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. 9. Here the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on two counts namely exempt Agricultural income treated as income from I.T.A Nos. 44 to 46/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 & 2013-14 Page No 8 M/s. Champion Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT other sources and addition on account of unexplained/unsecured loans. In this case also, the assessee before

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing declaration shall not be a ground to deny benefit of declaration to assessee. In the case of CIT v. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 362 ITR 233/49 taxmann.com 273/226 Taxman 44 (Mag.)(Mad.), the High Court in Para 2 of the order held as under:- ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing declaration shall not be a ground to deny benefit of declaration to assessee. In the case of CIT v. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 362 ITR 233/49 taxmann.com 273/226 Taxman 44 (Mag.)(Mad.), the High Court in Para 2 of the order held as under:- ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing declaration shall not be a ground to deny benefit of declaration to assessee. In the case of CIT v. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 362 ITR 233/49 taxmann.com 273/226 Taxman 44 (Mag.)(Mad.), the High Court in Para 2 of the order held as under:- ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing declaration shall not be a ground to deny benefit of declaration to assessee. In the case of CIT v. Adisankara Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 362 ITR 233/49 taxmann.com 273/226 Taxman 44 (Mag.)(Mad.), the High Court in Para 2 of the order held as under:- ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years