FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

1, Rajkot [in short ‘Ld. PCIT’], exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On verification of records, it was observed by ld PCIT that the assessee had introduced huge amount in the company in the form of share application money amounting to Rs.12,50,00,000/-. One of the reasons for selection of case under

SHIA IMMAMI ISMALIA GIRLS ACADEMY,BHUJ vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: N.A.) Shia Immami Ismalia Girls Academy, Vs. Bhaveshwar Nagar, Bhuj, Kutch, Gujarat-370001 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbts3142F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri R. B. Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr : 02/06/2025 : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad Vide Order Dated 04.09.2024, Wherein Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Rejected The Application Filed By The Assessee In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Act Holding That The Application Filed By The Assessee Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Act In Form No. 10Ab Is Prima Facie Not Maintainable. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Learned Cit (Exemption) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Not Granting Registration To The Appellant Trust On The Mere Ground That In The Application Made In Form No. 10Ab Of The Income Tax Rules, Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act Had Inadvertently Been Typed On Account Of Typographical Error Instead Of Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter & Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

condone the delay of 53 days and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing. 6. We note that Ld. CIT(E), on merit rejected the assessee's application observing as follows: “The applicant has filed an application for registration under section 12A(1

SHRI SHANTILAL MALTIPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR. vs. THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX & THE ITO-TDS-CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.275/Rjt/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes whereas

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

53,463/- is raised by the CPC while processing the Return U/s. 143(1) and while passing Order U/s. 154 of The I. T. Act, 1961, the same requires to be deleted. 4. At the outset we note that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) for two and half years which

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

53 ITR 231 (SC) wherein it was held as follows: “Initially a notice of assessment or re-assessment under section 34(1) of 1922 Act against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident person under section 43 of 1922 Act could not be issued after the expiry of one year from the end of the year

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

53,961/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. 3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as also

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

53,961/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. 3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as also

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

53,961/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. 3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as also

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

53,961/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted. 3) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as also

SHRI PARMESHBHAI PARBATBHAI CHANDERA,GIR-SOMNATH vs. THE ITO, WD-4, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

delay is hereby being condoned. 3. The brief facts in relation to this case are that assessee filed return of income which was processed by CPC after making addition of " 2,35,877/- under the head “income from business and profession”. The addition was on account of late contribution of employer’s contribution to PF amounting to " 1,53

BALVANTRAI AMRUTBHAI VYAS,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Appeal is dismissed as “not pressed

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

section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time of delay. After considering the reason explained by the Ld. AR. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 427 days, and appeal filed by the assessee heard on merit

SHRI DHIRENDRA NARBHERAM SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 (3) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

delay. Accordingly, we condone the same in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order

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)

53,52,410/-. 4.1. Today is the 5th time of hearing of the above appeal, None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices. Even on the previous hearing on 30-03-2023, Ld. Counsel Shri R.D. Lalchandani has withdrawn his Vakalath as he is not able to contact the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was adjourned

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)

53,52,410/-. 4.1. Today is the 5th time of hearing of the above appeal, None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices. Even on the previous hearing on 30-03-2023, Ld. Counsel Shri R.D. Lalchandani has withdrawn his Vakalath as he is not able to contact the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was adjourned

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)

53,52,410/-. 4.1. Today is the 5th time of hearing of the above appeal, None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notices. Even on the previous hearing on 30-03-2023, Ld. Counsel Shri R.D. Lalchandani has withdrawn his Vakalath as he is not able to contact the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was adjourned

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

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)

53,87,713 40,92,37,997/- The A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus the ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.” 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed appeals before us. 10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT

SHRI DHARAMRAJSINH BRIJRAJSINH JADEJA,DHROL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), JAMNAGAR

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter I.T.A No. 303/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Dharamrajsinh Brijrajsinh Jadeja vs. ITO referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015- 16. 2. The Registry has noted that the appeal is time barred by 47 days. The assessee in his affidavit stated that because

SMT. SUMARIBEN R. ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 02 days in filing this appeal by the assessee and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2.1. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of trading of brass product and supplied goods to various parts of India. Further the assessee is an illiterate person