SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

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

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

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 by the Ld. AR which

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

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 the provisions

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

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

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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