BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A No. 314/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National 1

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, dated 08.09.2025, which, in turn, arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.03.2015. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returned income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/- without any modifications. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, was issued to the assessee, on 07-08- 2013, which was duly served upon

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

disallowance under section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing\nOfficer on the ground of concealment of particulars. It is by now well settled that while\nissuing a notice under section 271(1

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 187/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Chakargadh Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT (CPC) Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 80P while processing the return u/s 143(1). Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised are dismissed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed. Order passed under section 250

SHRI NAVA UJALA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT NAVA UJALA, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, GUIJARAT-365450 vs. THE DCIT/ACIT(CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 80P while processing the return u/s 143(1). Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised are dismissed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed. Order passed under section 250

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

disallowance, as the underlying additions were either based on estimates or deleted. Similarly, a penalty related to additions from seized documents was deleted because the addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "271AAB(1)(c)", "250

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

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 31.05.2024, which arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Act dated 31.3.2022. ITA No.548 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2014-15) Jasumatiben Lalitchandra Shah 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal read

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

SHRI RAJKOT VISHASHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 256/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No 2 Shri Rajkot Vishashrimali Jain Samaj vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) NFAC Delhi has grievously erred in confirming the assessment of the returned income of Rs. 1

SHREE MALIYA KADVA PATEL SEVA SAMAJ,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12 2. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, as a charitable trust, to the assessee. And the ground raised by the assessee in this regard reads as under: I.T.A

SHREE MANGROL VANIK DASHA SHRIMALI GNATI SHAPUR DARWAJA,MANGROAL-362225 vs. THE ITO (EXMPTION) WARD-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by Ld

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 56/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Shree Mangrol Vanik Dasha Shrimali Gnati Shapur Darwaja vs. ITO (Exemption) 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the learned A.O. has grievously erred in assessing the returned income of Rs. Nil at a taxable

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

250/-.\n(ii).On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the\ndisallowance of deduction u/s.80JJAA of Rs.3,01,93,275/-, since such deduction had\nsubsequently been allowed by the CPC in rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act.\n(iii).The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the total

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

250 Jeinesh Rajpal 1,42,200 1,42,200 Keshu Parbat 1,17,329 98,700 Malde Samat 2,35,800 2,35,800 Meena MangelalGenaji 1,92,000 1,92,000 Menand Jivan Khant 1,21,861 48,730 RajujiHarbhamji Odedra 2,48,500 2,48,500 Raspallabour 1,59,280 1,59,280 Shah jayshreebhaiRajkishor 1

JASUMATIBEN LALITCHANDRA SHAH,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT

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

disallowed this set off. The assessee's rectification application under Section 154 was also rejected by the CPC-AO.", "held": "The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to improper consolidation of grounds related to two different orders (Section 143(1) and Section 154). The Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on its merit