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

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 of Rs. 10,83

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 of Rs. 10,83

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

VIDHYOTEJAK SAMAJ,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant, as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed

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

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

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

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

condone the delay. 7. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a private limited company.The assessee- company had filed return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, on 13/10/2017, declaring total loss of Rs.2,36,06,293/-. The assessee`s case was selected for Scrutiny through CASS. The assessment was finalized

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

AASHIRWAD BUILDERS,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 23.11.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2017. 1 Aashirwad Builders vs. DCIT 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under

SHREE JAMNAGAR JILLA SAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT-CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. On merit, I note that while passing assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.12,31,766/- on account of 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by this Division Bench of this Tribunal

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)

83 5/- and due to this reason my cash book without opening cash 01-04-2016- Rs.6,10,8357- has negative closing balance and the ITO Ward-4, Surendranagar. Wrongly added highest negative cash balance Rs.5,14,8637-. From date 23-03-2017. Wrongly added highest negative cash Rs.5,14,8637-. Point 4(i) page 59 also treated as undisclosed

JAYPRAKASH BHOVANBHAI JAGANI HUF,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shri Jayprakash Bhovanbhai Jagani Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1) (Huf) Rajkot. Block No.1001, Rajdhani Apartment Opp: Purhkardham, University Road Rajkot 360 005. Pan : Aaghj 5696 F (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

condone the delay. 4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The Return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, was e-filed by the assessee on 21/02/2018, with returned income at Rs. 9,450/-, claiming exempt agriculture income of Rs. 4,83,289/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny

POOJA OMPRAKASH NAWANI,ADIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.876/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Pooja Omprakash Nawani Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Flat-5 Nirav Appartment, Plot-358 Ito Ward – 2, Ward-2B, Gandhidham - 370205 Adipur 370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpn4546H (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 : 08 / 07 /2025

83 ITR 26 held that that "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation