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)

section 50C is not applicable. 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming by making addition of Rs. 3,06,284/- u/s 68 for agricultural income disclosed by appellant for want of supporting documents. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as fact by confirming addition

SHYAMJIKRUSHNA VARMA TOWNSHIP,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

46A. There is some delay in fling the appeal and this is because of the fact that the person concerned was not conversant with the matter and he had handed over some to his acquaintance who could not get the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Bench in time, resulting in delay. It is prayed that the delay in filing

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 ASHOKBHAI DEVJIBHAI PATEL,MITANA, DIST. MORBI vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 243/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokbhai Devjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(1)(1), C/O. M/S. Jay Ganesh Petroleum, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Mitana-Morbi – 363611 Rajkot-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp7584K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 47 days. 6. Brief facts of the case that the assessee filed his return of income showing total income of Rs. 17,41,590/- was filed on 16.10.2012, The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The assessee is engaged in the business of transportation & insurance agent

JAYDEEP THAKARSHIBHAI BADRAKIA,MORBI vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESHBHAI SURESHBHAI UNTAVADIYA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAYDEEP T BADRAKIA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and in deciding the assessee's appeal on the basis of the same, without recording proper reasons

SHRI PRAKASH J. BAGDAI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI, PRESENT JURISDICTION WITH ITO-WARD-1 (2)(4), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 138/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Prakash J. Bagdai, I.T.O., C/O M.N. Manvar & Co., Vs. Ward-16(1)(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai. 504-Star Plaza, (Present Jurisdiction With Phulchhab Chowk, I.T.O, Rajkot. Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot.)

46A is satisfied and dismissed the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 73 days. However, it was noticed that the delay has occurred by the assessee in filing the appeal during the Covid-19 period. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay is hereby being condoned. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139 (1) of the Act and therefore, notice under section 148 was issued by the Department on 31-03-2019. In response, the assessee filed return of income 01-06-2019, disclosing “Nil” income. During

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

46A which is reproduced as under:- ……. 4.6 As the appellant has not complied with the requirements of Sec.206C(1A) therefore he cannot escape from the responsibility entrusted upon him of collecting tax at source. The appellant on the other hand has contested this issue and has submitted certain case laws wherein it was held that submission of form

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

46A which is reproduced as under:- ……. 4.6 As the appellant has not complied with the requirements of Sec.206C(1A) therefore he cannot escape from the responsibility entrusted upon him of collecting tax at source. The appellant on the other hand has contested this issue and has submitted certain case laws wherein it was held that submission of form

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

46A which is reproduced as under:- ……. 4.6 As the appellant has not complied with the requirements of Sec.206C(1A) therefore he cannot escape from the responsibility entrusted upon him of collecting tax at source. The appellant on the other hand has contested this issue and has submitted certain case laws wherein it was held that submission of form

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

46A which is reproduced as under:- ……. 4.6 As the appellant has not complied with the requirements of Sec.206C(1A) therefore he cannot escape from the responsibility entrusted upon him of collecting tax at source. The appellant on the other hand has contested this issue and has submitted certain case laws wherein it was held that submission of form

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

delayering of funds in\nthe process of money laundering. Upon detection, the Income Tax department has treated\nthese sums as unexplained cash deposits and taxed the entire amount as deemed income. The\n'Angadiya/shroff' have disclosed the modus-operandi in clear terms.\nvi. The \"Angadiya\" is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to\nmonetary transactions