CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowed the deduction stating that the appellant is not entitled to deduction on the ground that the appellant filed the return of income beyond the due date mentioned in Sec. 139(1) of the Act. In this regard, Section 80AC of the Act is reproduced below:- Section 80AC Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous

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)

disallow opening cash balance of Rs.6,10,835/- Page No. 59 Para 4 in assessment order passed by income tax officer Ward-4, Surendranagar wrongly not accept my opening cash dated 01/04/2016. Rs.6,10,835/-. As I have business of fertilizer in A.Y. 2016-17. Also and opening cash is carry forward 6,10,835/- although the income tax officer

BILIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,MORBI, RAJKOT vs. ITO WARD 1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 737219. 2. The Ld. AO has erred on facts & in law in levying the penalty u/s 270A of the 1.T. Act. 3. The Ld. AO has erred on facts & in law in levying the penalty u/s 234F of the I.T. Act. Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandali

KIRAN AMISHKUMAR THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

disallowance of Chapter VIA deduction, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 55,79,230/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices from the lower authorities and did not present their case effectively. Applying the principle 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt', the Tribunal set aside the lower

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

Disallowance of expenses has been made without following the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. 7. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act. 8. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

Disallowance of expenses has been made without following the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. 7. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act. 8. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A

SHREE AMRELI GURJAR SAGAR GNATI TRUST.,AMRELI vs. THE ACIT-CPC,, BANGLORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

234A, 234B & 234C Rs. 1,58,724/- - Total 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but the written submissions were filed

TRICOT IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 143(3) of the Act, is bad in law as well as facts. 2. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law by in confirming the addition in respect of unproved sundry credits

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17. The issue raised in ground No. 3 and 4 by the assessee is either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 18. The solitary issue raised by the assessee

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17. The issue raised in ground No. 3 and 4 by the assessee is either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 18. The solitary issue raised by the assessee

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17. The issue raised in ground No. 3 and 4 by the assessee is either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 18. The solitary issue raised by the assessee

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17. The issue raised in ground No. 3 and 4 by the assessee is either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as not pressed. 18. The solitary issue raised by the assessee

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)

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 of the Ld. CIT and Ld. AO are not justified in law as well as facts of the case

SMT. KRISHNA JITENDRASINH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 104/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Smt. Krishna Jitendrasinh Jadeja vs. ITO 1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 19, 96,751 /- being 5% of the total transportation

M/S. HINDUSTAN PROJECTS,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

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

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, when addition itself not sustainable. Your Honour’s appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal on/or before hearing of appeal.” 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

M/S WESTERN INDIA CERAMICS P. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 4 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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. 14/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 M/s. Western India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in dismissing the appeal and whereby upholding

M/S. AARVEE INTERNATIONAL, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT

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

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

section 144 of the Act, is bad in law as well as facts. 2.The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law by in confirming the addition in respect of undisclosed interest income received during

SHRI RAMPAL SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM

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

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. 193/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shri Rampal Singh vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 1 l,78,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit | u/s68ofthe