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

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)

set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief

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)

set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief

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

set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

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

delay had been condoned, whereas the Appellant has suffered irreparable loss due to dismissal of the appeal at the threshold. 5. Because the Learned Authority failed to consider that the Appellant had acted with due diligence and had no intention to gain any unfair advantage by filing the appeal belatedly. 6. Because the Learned Authority ignored binding judicial precedents which

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

Loss A/c., requiring no separate effect to be given to the Total Income. In case of a Builder, following Project Completion Method, the accumulated stock gets reduced when corresponding Sales is effected and recognized in P&L. It is obvious and ostensible that upon Sale being given effect, the value of Closing Stock would be lesser than that of Opening

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condone the delay in both appeals. 3. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.449/RJT/2025, for assessment Year 2012-13, have been taken into

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing objections before it u/s. 144C(2) of the Act. Further as rightly held by the Ld. DRP as against the final assessment order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144C(3) of the Act, the assessee is open to file its appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the order passed

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)

loss account, and the total income was below the taxable limit. The invocation of presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was misapplied and unjustified in the given circumstances. * Non-Consideration of Available Evidence by CIT(A) The CIT(A) failed to consider that all relevant documents—including bank statements, capital account, balance sheet, and P&L account—were already submitted before

AMRATALAL KARSANDAS SAMANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.463/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Amrutlalkarsandassamani Vs. Principal Commissioner Rest House Road, Of Income Tax, Jodhpur Gate, Jamnagar-361008 Jam Khambhaliya, Dist: Devbhoomi Dwarka-361305. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhps5447P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /02 /2025 : 25 /04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual.In this the assessee has filed return of income on 29/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 19,59,300/- (which includes the amount of Rs 10,06,000/-disclosed during the survey proceedings as unaccounted excess stock

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

loss and hardship. We, thus, for the ends of justice condone the delay. ITA No.165 to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee due to the reasons mentioned above could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

loss and hardship. We, thus, for the ends of justice condone the delay. ITA No.165 to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee due to the reasons mentioned above could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

loss and hardship. We, thus, for the ends of justice condone the delay. ITA No.165 to 168/RJT/2016 A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, & 2000-01 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee due to the reasons mentioned above could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and accordingly proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 10. The issue raised by the assessee is that the benefit of the proviso to section 12A of the Act should be provided to it while making the assessment of its income. 10.1 The history of the case on hand

ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and accordingly proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 10. The issue raised by the assessee is that the benefit of the proviso to section 12A of the Act should be provided to it while making the assessment of its income. 10.1 The history of the case on hand

ALKA RAJEN SHAH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (1) (1) , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiassessment Year: (2019-20) Alka Rajen Shah, Income Tax Officer, 59, Silver Sand B/H. Parijat Party Plot Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot, Vs. Off: 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot- 360 Income Tax Officer, M.G. 005 Road, Beside Girnar Pan : Aykps 4510 K Cinema, Rajkot-360 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By. : Shri Raju Manek, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr

set aside to learned CIT Appeal. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds (i) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of I.T. Act 1961 which is had in law and also on the facts. (ii) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE considering that there was benefits of Long term capital

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4.Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and the return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11 was e-filed by the assessee, on 16/06/2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,66,230/-, Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened u/s.147