SHREE SAURASTRA KA;AKENDRA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act. In response to the adjustment made by CPC u/s 143(1), the assessee filed three separate rectification applications, which were all rejected by the CPC. Accordingly, the assessee filed appeal against the order passed by CPC under Section 154

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance of payment made of Rs. A.Y. 2016-17 2 7,54,7000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that the same may kindly be heard and allowed. 3) That the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s.250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was arbitrary, bad in law and unjust. 4) That the assessee

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

O P MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowing a sum of Rs.11,07,179/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payments by Employee’s Contributions of PF/ESIC” 3. The assessee company furnished its return of income under Section 139 of the Act, 1961 on 29.09.2018. The Assessing Officer observed that the company in certain cases had not paid Employee’s contribution towards

M/S. DEENDAYAL PORT TRUST (ERSTWHILE KANDLA TRUST PORT),,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing the entire brought forward losses of AY 2005-06 while determining the income for AY 2006-07 without disturbing the assessed loss of AY 2005-06. 5. In any case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer under section 154

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\n2.\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

154 was carried out, vide order dated\n28.02.2018 wherein addition of Rs.589,63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61

DHIRAJLAL GOVINDBHAI PATEL ,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.299/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Dhirajlal Govindbhai Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1(2)(1), Mayurpankh Industries, K-1/49, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Road-D, Phase-I, Aji Gidc, 80Ft Ring Road, Road, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360003 Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agepp0489N (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22 /10 /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 /01 /2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 08.05.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as followed: ITA No.299/RJT/2024 A.Y. 2020-21 Dhirajbhai Govindlal Patel v. ITO 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income – tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC in making addition of Rs. 68,02,077/- by disallowing

SHRI KUTCH VISA OSWAL JAIN DERAWASI SANGH BIDADA,MANDVI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD (1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 160/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi The Ito Exemption, Ward (1), Vs. Sangh Bidada, P.O. Bidada, Rajkot. New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Mandvi 370435 Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts0457L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of accumulation under section 11(2) of the act as there was a genuine error in filing Form 10 and full claim of accumulation under section 11(2) of Rs. 15,00,0 00 shall be allowed to the assessee. 4. The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 24-11-2019 on application u/s. 154

ROGI KALYAN SAMITI CHITAL,CHITAL AMRELI vs. 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.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.3,99,140/-. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA.328/RJT/2023/AY.2013-14 Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital 4. That, the finding

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

154 was passed without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with First Proviso to Section 143(1). ITEM NO 4 Wrong applicability of provision of Section 40(a)(ia): 1. CPC has made addition by way of disallowance

THE ACIT CIRCLE- 1 (1), RAJKOT vs. M/S. MICRO MELT PVT. LTD. , SHAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 154 of the Act dated 18-10- 2010 and re-assessed the income of the assessee by disallowing the claim

VITARAG EXPORT INDUSTRIES,JUNAGADH ROAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, ground No.5 raised by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Vitrang Export Industries, Vs. The Ito, Junagadh Road, Near Railway Ward – 2(1)(1), Crossing, Dhoraji, Gujarat - 360140 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfv2407M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation on alleged purchase of solvent machineries. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal at anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.” 3. Ground Nos.1 to 3 raised by the assessee are interconnected and mixed. These grounds relate to addition of Rs.1

SORTHIYA AHIR GNATINO UTARO,BHAVNATH, JUNAGADH vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

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

section 13(9) of the Act exemption u/s. 11(2) is allowed only if Form 10 is e-filed before the I.T.A No. 104/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Sorthiya Ahir Gnatino Utaro vs. ADIT(CPC) due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. As the assessee filed Form 10 after the due date, but along with

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANKS EMPLOYEES M P CREDIT CO-OP. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing\nclaim of deduction of Rs. 4,83,300/- made by the Appellant u/s. 80(2)(d) of the Act by\nway of order u/s. 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3) The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate the true import\nof decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of KatlayKariyana Merchant\nSahkariSarafiMandali