M/S CASTECH FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Castech Foundries P Ltd. Jcit, Junagadh Range-1 1708/09, Gidc Estate-Ii Vs Junagadh. Dolapara Junagadh 362 003. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

disallowance and allow this ground of appeal. 10. So far as ground regarding levy of interest under section 234B & 234D

M/S. CASTECH FOUNDRIES PVT. LTD.,,JUNAGADH vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH RANGE-1,, JUNAGADH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Castech Foundries P Ltd. Jcit, Junagadh Range-1 1708/09, Gidc Estate-Ii Vs Junagadh. Dolapara Junagadh 362 003. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

disallowance and allow this ground of appeal. 10. So far as ground regarding levy of interest under section 234B & 234D

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

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

disallowance in the assessment\nproceedings; Hence, such 'illegal cash payment transactions” is added and abetted by the\nassessee and his associates whereby the purchaser deposits the differential cash amount in the\nbank a/c of the assessee. The assessee is contacted by the seller about the said deposit or\ninformed by the purchaser about it. The assessee verifies the deposits

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

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 and 234B

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 and 234B

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

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

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

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

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

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

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

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

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

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

disallowance of loss of Rs.23,63,465/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte

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

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 of Rs. 80,85,000/- under

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

disallowance in the assessment\nproceedings; Hence, such 'illegal cash payment transactions” is added and abetted by the\nassessee and his associates whereby the purchaser deposits the differential cash amount in the\nbank a/c of the assessee. The assessee is contacted by the seller about the said deposit or\ninformed by the purchaser about it. The assessee verifies the deposits