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.

65,53,000/- unsecured loan + Rs.9,,93,75,000/- share capital). As per the proviso to Section 68 of the Act, it is mandatory (as per law) to verify the source of the source of share capital Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. and the assessing officer failed to verify the source of the source of the capital contributed and hence, there

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

65 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under section

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short),for assessment year 2018-19, all dated 21.02.2024. 2. Through these appeals, assessee assails the correctness of separate orders passed by the Learned Principal Commissioners of Income-tax (Ld.PCIT), in relation to the captioned assessment year 2018-19. Since these appeals are based on similar facts and common

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short),for assessment year 2018-19, all dated 21.02.2024. 2. Through these appeals, assessee assails the correctness of separate orders passed by the Learned Principal Commissioners of Income-tax (Ld.PCIT), in relation to the captioned assessment year 2018-19. Since these appeals are based on similar facts and common

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Krupa Vilas Gau Seva Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kutch. Ahmedabad. Anjar, Anjar Road, Bhimasar Taluka Anjar, Kutch-370240. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaetk8746K (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 1 | Page

65 (Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as follows: “18. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the application for registration under section

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

condone the delay in both appeals and admit these appeals for hearing. 7. In both these appeals, the assessee has raised the grounds pertaining to technical issue, being notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is time barred. When these cases were called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue under consideration, in both appeals

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

BHAVESHBHAI HARIBHAI KANANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.233/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम/ Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani Income Tax Officer Plot No. E211, Gidc Phase-2, Vs Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar Dared, Jamnagar, Gujarat - 361008 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypk5085F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condone the delay. 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding in addition of Rs.39,82,206/- made by Id.AO by estimating profit @4% on gross sales turnover and in adopting profit rate of 4% without considering nature of business, past history

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

PAREEN RIAZ DOSANI,BHANVAD vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DWARKA, DWARKA

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

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

65 days, has occurred. On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue, did not have any objection, if the delay is condoned. We heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4.Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.902/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust The Ito (Exemption) बनाम Plot No.1, Dc-2 Ward-1 Rambaug Road Rajkot. Vs. Ward-6A, Adipur. Pan : Aabts 1102 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Chennai[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 02.05.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Intimation Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Cpc) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:

condonation of delay in filing the audit report for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The ld CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to fulfil, the fundamental requirement of timely audit report submission therefore, the adjustment made by the assessing officer(CPC), concerning the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act, was confirmed

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 VIJAY JAMNADAS VINCHHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), JAMNAGAR

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A No. 309/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shri Vijaybhai Jamnadas Vinchhi. vs. ITO 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 58 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee

BHARTIBEN VASHRAMBHAI SINDHAV,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

condoning the delay and hearing the appeal on merits. 3. On merits, the facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from job work and agricultural income. During the year, the assessee had purchased a piece of agricultural land at Kuvada for an amount of " 1,16,86,000/- along with Shri

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

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.)

65,954 is totally bad in law and in facts, ignoring the fact that the accountant, appeared and submitted the details called for vide notice dated: 17/09/2009 u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 and passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the act without issuing show cause notice for alleged addition. 2. The Ld. assessing officer has passed assessment

AMRAPAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,AMRAPAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 324/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Amrapar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of C/O., Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Floor, Income Tax – 1, Dr. Radha Krishna Road, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Rajkumar Collage, Rajkot - 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa0819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2026 : 17/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

65,932/- and Rs.3,12,420/- in the bank account that Shri Rajkot District Co. Op. Bank, on that basis, notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued to the assessee, in response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. NIL, claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. That the assesse filed detail