KANATALAW SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,RAJKOT (AMRELI) vs. THE ITO WARD - 3 (1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 15.03.2024 & 13.06.2024, which in turn arise out of intimation orders passed by CPC, Bengaluru / Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act, on 25.06.2019 & 01.05.2020; respectively. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.200/Rjt/2025

HOTHI SAMAT KESHWALA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 408/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Hothi Samat Keshwala Ito, Wd – 2(4), At Visavada, Via Bokhira Porbandar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Nh-8E, Porbanadar – 360575 Porbandar Road, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Buppk0380P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: 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 05.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order 21.10.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

condone the delay. 6. Succinct facts are that in assessee`s case, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, was issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Porbandar, on 13.02.2018, in which the assessee was requested to furnish return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on or before 15.03.2018. The assessee had not furnished return of income

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

Section 115BBE of the Act, which is barred by limitation\nby 279 days, which may be condoned in the interest of the Justice.\n6.On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue did not raise any serious objection,\nabout condonation of delay in respect of cross objection filed by the assessee.\n7. We have heard both the parties on this

SHRI BHARATBHAI RAYSINH VALA,DEVALI DEDA, KODINAR, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), AMRELI, AMRELI

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

section 253(5) and the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone the\ndelay, and admit the appeal and proceed further for hearing.\n5. Brief facts of the case that the appellant is an business of distribution and\nselling of milk products of Girnar Dairy Food Private Limited. The appellant\nhas no income except Income

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

KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JUNAGADH RANGE, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.425/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Developers Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Business Centre, Bud Stand, Tax Junagadh Range, L.B.S. Society, Income Tax Office, Junagadh – 362210 Junagadh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefk0952H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shrimehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

92,956/- by estimating income @ 5.4% on work done through sub contractors and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the same. 5. The order passed by Ld. Assessing officer u/s 143(3) is bad in law as well as on facts and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC

SHRI PRASHANT JENTILAL RAMANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

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

condoned the delay in filing the above appeal and given five hearing opportunities namely on 12.03.2021, 19.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 02.02.2023 and 14.02.2023. However the assessee failed to response to above notices neither filed any adjournment nor filed written submissions before the I.T.A Nos. 152 & 153/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Prashant Jentilal Ramani Vs. ITO Ld. NFAC. In the absence

SHRI PRASHANT JENTILAL RAMANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

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

condoned the delay in filing the above appeal and given five hearing opportunities namely on 12.03.2021, 19.07.2021, 10.08.2021, 02.02.2023 and 14.02.2023. However the assessee failed to response to above notices neither filed any adjournment nor filed written submissions before the I.T.A Nos. 152 & 153/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Prashant Jentilal Ramani Vs. ITO Ld. NFAC. In the absence

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)

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(A) has restricted upto

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

92,37,997/-\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

92,37,997/-\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

92,37,997/-\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

92,37,997/-\nThe 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.\"\n9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed appeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

92,45,263/- for account No. 015305001905\nand Rs. 10,37,27,193/- for account No. 015305003488, aggregating to\nRs.15,29,72,456/-, which was added to the assessee's returned income.\n7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried\nthe matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly deleted the\naddition made

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

92,37,997/\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

92,37,997/-\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

92,37,997/-\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

92,37,997/-\nThe A.O. is directed to consider the income of the above-mentioned cases as determined above. Thus\nthe ground of appeal is partly allowed to this extent.\"\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue as well as assessee, filed\nappeals before us.\n10. The Revenue is in appeal because Ld.CIT(A) has restricted upto