SHRI NIRAV H. KANABAR ( PROP. OF HEENA ELECTRONICS),JAM-KHAMBHALIYA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (4), DWARKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and subject to payment of cost of " 5000/- as mentioned above

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 304/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shri Nirav H. Kanabar (Prop. Of Heena Electronics) vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “All the below mentioned grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudices to each other

HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 625/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 1(1)(1),/Rkt. 360360.Gujarat It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Axupt8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026

section 144B of the I.T. Act, on dated 12/09/2022. Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1. Addition of Rs. 7,40,673/- u/s 40(a)(ia) & Variation u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs. 12,508/- The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 25 days

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

SHRI DHARMESH BHAILAL VAGHELA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3 (1)(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the matter is being set aside to the ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 169/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Shri Dharmesh Bhailal Vaghela vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- Tax effect relating to each Ground of Grounds of appeal appeal 1 That, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without affording

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

condone the delay in filing of appeal for 30 days and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The grounds raised in this appeal are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Learned CIT(A)-2 erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s.271

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.)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 4. The assessee in ground No. 2 has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 144 of the Act on the reasoning that the AO Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the assessee during the relevant time. 5. At the outset it was submitted

SHRI EKTA EDUCATION TRUST,KESHOD vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD (2), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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. 177/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Shri Ekta Education Trust बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Professional Academy Primary Ward-2, Rajkot, New Aayakar /Vs. School, Gokuldham Mangrole Road, Bhawan, Race Course Ring Keshod-362 220 Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts 1570 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D.M.Rindani, A.R. & Ms. Devina Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 12.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre/Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatanam, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore By Failing To Appreciate That The Actin Of Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustments To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act & In Denying The Benefit Of Sec.11 Of The Appellant Was Not A Case Of Permissible Prima Facie Adjustment.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1, (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”, dated 12.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Centralized Processing Centre/Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

96,470/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2016-17 confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

96,470/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2016-17 confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

96,470/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2016-17 confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

96,470/- by alleging that the appellant is liable for making TCS, which he failed to make either TCS or to file Form no. 27C to concerned CIT within prescribed time limit. The tax liability ITA Nos.51to54/Rjt/2023 Shri Babulal MIyaram Gadri vs. ITO Asst.Years –2013-14 to 2016-17 confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also