SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

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

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

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

234C and 234D of the I. T. Act, 1961. (9). That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal, which is as follows: “The notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2018, is in violation of CBDT instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II

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

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

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