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

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

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

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

condone the delay of 120 days in ITA No.612/RJT/2024,as also 119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,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

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

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

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay inassessee`s appeal in ITA No. 595/Rjt/2024 (Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd.). 8. When, these two appeals called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 25.04.2025 in the case of“Shree Samrath Switchgear &Transmission P. Ltd. & Shri Samrath Electronics P. Ltd.& Shri Gojiya Bhikhubhai”, vide

HARUNBHAI NOORMAMD JINDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(7), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

condone the delay. 7. On merit, facts of the assessee`s case are as follows. In the assessee`s case, as per instructions issued by CBDT, in the form of SOP dated 21/02/2017, verification was carried out, in respect of the transactions of cash deposits made in bank account relating to demonetization period and it was found that the assessee

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

SHIVEN CERAMIC LLP,MORBI vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.392/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S Shiven Ceramic Llp, बनाम Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, /Vs. 604/P5, 642/P1, Village Delhi Ghnutu, Lakhdhirpur Nr. Royal Touch Vitrified, Morbi-360 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adifs 8442 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that in an appeal filed, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, who has, vide order

ASHISHKUMAR BHAGVANJIBHAI KANSAGRA,RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIR - 2(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 once the primary three conditions-identity, credit worthiness, and genuineness-are satisfied. [CIT v. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC); PCIT v. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 451 (Bom)] 5. That the assessment and appellate proceedings are vitiated due to lack of independent verification by the AO/CIT(A), and the addition is based on mere

SHRI VIPULBHAI YOGESHKUMAR TELI,CHALALA VILLAGE, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay is condoned. 4. On merit, the solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.15,00,000/-, cash deposit in bank account. 5. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 234A and 234B may be recomputed based on th revised income. • Relief may kindly be granted in the interest of equity, justice, and fair play. • Set aside the appellate order dated 17/12/2024 passed by CIT(A), Ahmedabad-7. • Delete the additions made u/s 69A and u/s 44AD amounting to ?10,87,340/-. • Restore the matter

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

condoned the delay in filing appeal by 363 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.08.2017 declaring therein total income at Rs.13,53,640/-. The return of income has been processed u/s. 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for complete scrutiny

SURYA ELECTROMECH PRIVET LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.262/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Income Tax Officer, Suryaelectromech Private Limited, Vs. Ward 2, Plot No.33, Gidc, Sector No.8, Gandhidham Gujrat Gandhidham 370201 370201

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28/10/2016. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly. The learned AR adverted our attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons

HANIF OSMAN RAVDA,SITLACHAWK OPP. REHEMANI MASJID ,MEMANWAD MEMANWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) , PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.447/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hanif Osman Ravda Vs. Ito Ward 2 (3), Sitla Chawk, Rehemani Masjid, Porbandar - 360575 Memanwad, Porbandar – 360575 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepr8023N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 69A without bringing any contrary evidence or conducting independent verification of the names, addresses and contact details of customers already furnished by the assessee. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13, is barred by limitation by 68 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR RAMNIKLAL DOSHI,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Vs. Income Tax Officer Doshi Ward-2, Surendranagar B-601, Retreat, Near Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpd2297E (Assessee) (Respondent)

68,77,783/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned assessing officer has grossly erred in making impugned addition under Section 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that no actual investments were made for the subject year under consideration

JAMNDAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI,MANAVADAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

condone the delay. 23. However, the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is only on the ground that the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction on every aspect of this case in terms of Section 245F(2) of the Act and in terms of provision of Chapter XI-A. It is an admitted position that