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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit.\n6. On merit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, passed by the learned CIT(A) without adjudicating the various issues

RUPA VIMAL PADALIYA,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with an addition of Rs. 15,51,000/- for unexplained investment in a flat. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for delayed filing and non-compliance. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal found that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

51,13,862/-.\n5. Any other ground that the Revenue may rise before or during the proceedings before the\nHon'ble ITAT.\n6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the assessing\nofficer be restored to the above extent.\"\n3.Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Cross Objection

SHRI AKBAR UMARBHAI KHIRA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (5),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

condone delay of 51 days in filing of first appeal without appreciating that appellant was located in village of Jamnagar District and being not literate and being under depression due to personal difficulties could not approach, Chartered Accountant situated at Ahmedabad to understand implications arising out of assessment order and to get the appeal prepared and filed before

SHRI RAMJIBHAI ARJANBHAI PANSARA,JAMNAGAR vs. THEINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

condone delay of 51 days in filing of first appeal without appreciating that appellant was located in village of Jamnagar District and being not much literate and being under depression due to personal difficulties could not approach Chartered Accountant situated at Ahmedabad to understand implications arising out of assessment order and to get the appeal prepared and filed before

SHRI RAMNIKLAL D. AGHERA,KESHOD vs. THE ITO WARD-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay of 18 days in filing of the present appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee agriculturalist and holds 18.66 acres of land. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 11,50,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with the State

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not Apex Irrigation presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 461 days 7. Brief facts of the case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MORBI vs. M/S. KISHAN PLUS MINARALS, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

delay is condoned 6. Now first, we shall adjudicate, the Revenue`s appeal in ITA No.124/RJT/2021. We advert to the relevant facts. The assessee has e-filed his return of Income, on 13.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs. 0/- The assessee has shown total business income of Rs. 10,04,597/- and also claimed the set-off of brought forward

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

condone the delay in filing of appeal for 30 days and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The grounds raised in this appeal are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Learned CIT(A)-2 erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s.271

KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JUNAGADH RANGE, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.425/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Developers Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Business Centre, Bud Stand, Tax Junagadh Range, L.B.S. Society, Income Tax Office, Junagadh – 362210 Junagadh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefk0952H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shrimehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

51,554/- by estimating income @ 3% on work done on sub let basis and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. 4. Ld. Assessing officer has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.9,92,956/- by estimating income @ 5.4% on work done through sub contractors

SULTANPUR JUTH SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,RAJKOT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC (PRESENT JURIS. ACIT-DCIT CIR 1(1),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

51,445/- and Rs. 12,16,576/-, respectfully, and appeal in ITA No.697/RJT/2024 relates to penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appeals in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, and in ITA No.697/RJT/2024, filed for Assessment Years, 2018-19 & 2020-21, all are barred by limitation by 90 days, each. The assessee has moved a petition

SULTANPUR JUTH SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,RAJKOT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC (PRESENT JURIS. ACIT-DICT CIR 1(1) RAJKOT), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

51,445/- and Rs. 12,16,576/-, respectfully, and appeal in ITA No.697/RJT/2024 relates to penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appeals in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, and in ITA No.697/RJT/2024, filed for Assessment Years, 2018-19 & 2020-21, all are barred by limitation by 90 days, each. The assessee has moved a petition

SULTANPUR JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,SULTANPUR, TAL. GONDAL, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

51,445/- and Rs. 12,16,576/-, respectfully, and appeal in ITA No.697/RJT/2024 relates to penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appeals in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, and in ITA No.697/RJT/2024, filed for Assessment Years, 2018-19 & 2020-21, all are barred by limitation by 90 days, each. The assessee has moved a petition

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

SHREE CHALALA VI KA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-AMRELI., RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Ccountant Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 358/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Shree Chalala Vi Ka Seva Sahakari Vs. The Ito Ward 3(1)(4), Mandali Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Chalala Haveli Road, Road, Dhari Amreli - 365630 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatas2273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 31/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: - 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Confirming Action Of Cpc, Bangalore In Disallowing Claim Of Deduction Of Rs. 3,51,828/- U/S Sop Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Sec. 143(1)(A)(V) Do Not Provide For Denial Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act When The Return Of Income Is Not Filed Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act But U/S 139(4). 2. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Upholding Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustment To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Shree Chalala Vikas Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd.

section; (i) 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.8,06,042/- (ii) 80P(2)(a)(iv) - Rs.1,06,063/- (iii) 80P(2)(d) - Rs.3,51,828/- 4. Thereafter, the appellant was in receipt of communication for not granting deduction of Rs. 1263 933/- claimed in the return of income u/s 80P of the Act, stating that the assessee not filed Return within

ISHWARBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

51 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the affidavit stating the reasons therein. The reasons appear to be genuine, hence the delay is condoned. 3. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,17,870/- being expenditure incurred on the purchase from

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

delay is hereby being condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the office premises of the assessee on 28-11-2014 for verification of TDS compliance. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of salt, providing liquid storage tank

M/S. FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALIED INDUSTRIES,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

delay is hereby being condoned. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the office premises of the assessee on 28-11-2014 for verification of TDS compliance. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of salt, providing liquid storage tank