GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also\n119 days' delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024,\nand admit these respective appeals for hearing.\n7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA\nNo.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into\nconsideration for deciding

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

Section 57"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order passed

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 3. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue involved in the appeal of the assessee is that assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,51,082/- on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, which is exempted under section 10(37) of the Income tax Act 1961. However, assessing officer

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts of the Case that t that the appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business he appellant is a Partnership Firm doing business of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. of trading in scrap. Proceeding u/s. 201 was initiated by the Income

CHOUDHARY NARSIRAM,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, penalty appeal is also allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 271B, of the Act,\n(hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\nITA. 946 & 943/RJT/2024/AY.2017-18\nChoudhary Narsiram\n2.In ITA No.946/Rjt/2024, assessee has challenged the addition in\nquantum assessment, whereas in ITA Nos. 943/Rjt/2024, the assessee\nhas challenged the validity of penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act, dated\n25.01.2022. As certain facts in these appeals are common, and these\nappeals

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

delay is condoned in filing the appeal. 6.Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee has e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs.2,41,110/- and agriculture income of Rs.5,60,400/- on 18.03.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1.T. Act, accepting

SHITALBEN JYOTIKUMAR RAYCHURA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, PORBANDAR

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

condoned the delay.\n5. Facts of the case that the appellant run a small Kariyana Shop in the name\nof \"Gayatri Provision Store\", having small income and hence there is no\nliability to file ITR for AY 2012-13. The assessee was served with notice\nu/s. 148 dated 11.03.2019 and the reason for reopening of assessment was\nthe cash deposits

CHOUDHARY NARSIRAM,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, penalty appeal is also allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 271B, of the Act,\n(hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").\nITA. 946 & 943/RJT/2024/AY.2017-18\nChoudhary Narsiram\n2.In ITA No.946/Rjt/2024, assessee has challenged the addition in\nquantum assessment, whereas in ITA Nos. 943/Rjt/2024, the assessee\nhas challenged the validity of penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act, dated\n25.01.2022. As certain facts in these appeals are common, and these\nappeals

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

SATYENDRA KUMAR,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.909/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Satyendra Kumar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Plot No-72 Ward-7B., Ito Ward – 1, Gandhidham, Kutch - 370201 Gandhidham - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeapk7626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 07 /2025

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Satyendrakumar vs. The I.T. Officer ward-1 2. GROUNDS OF APPEALS:- 1. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing appeal on ground of limitation without condoning delay of 190 days in filing appeal. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts

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

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT BRANCH,GIR SOMNATH vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 180 & 181/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) Indian Red Cross Society Gir Somnath Cit(Exemption) Vs. District Branch Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Block No.4, Divya Apartment, Opp. Sbi Ayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), 100Ft Bank, 80Ft Road, Veraval, Gir-Somnath, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Gujarat-362266 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabai3231R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 209 days and heard the appeal on merit. 8. Brief facts of the case the application for registration of the trust u/s. 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 was filed electronically and as per data available in ITBA, the same is filed on 26/12/2022 by the assessee in Form No. 10AB under Rule

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT BRANCH,SOMNATH vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 180 & 181/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) Indian Red Cross Society Gir Somnath Cit(Exemption) Vs. District Branch Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Block No.4, Divya Apartment, Opp. Sbi Ayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), 100Ft Bank, 80Ft Road, Veraval, Gir-Somnath, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Gujarat-362266 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabai3231R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 209 days and heard the appeal on merit. 8. Brief facts of the case the application for registration of the trust u/s. 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 was filed electronically and as per data available in ITBA, the same is filed on 26/12/2022 by the assessee in Form No. 10AB under Rule

MAHESHBHAI SUMATBHAI BASIYA,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-2, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 400/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18)

condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant part of the application for delay is as under; “2.0 That the assessment in case of assessee was finalized vide order u/s.144 of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2019 assessing total income Rs.62,57,560/- by making additions of Rs.62,55,000/-. 3.0 In an appeal filed, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

SHREE GAMARA SAMAJIK SEVA MANDAL,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

57 Chennai ITAT. 4. Where original trust deed as well as copy thereof along with income and expenditure account is already furnished. The rejection of 12A application will not approve. 27 SOT 423 Delhi ITAT. . 5. Even if there is some suspicion regarding income as well as resources rejection was not approve by the Hon. P& H HIGH COURT