M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

253, 1970 SCR (1) 753 8. In view of submission made here in above, we request you to please direct the A.O. to delete the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the above submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer observing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowance made by the assessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to be deleted, may kindly be deleted. [This is ground No.2 in assessee`s appeal in ITA No.254/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2010–11, ground No.2 in assessee`s appeal in ITA No.255/RJT/2024, for assessment year Bhavani Industries India LLP ITA Nos.247

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowance made by the assessing officer and retained by CIT(A), is totally unjustified, uncalled for and deserves to be deleted, may kindly be deleted. [This is ground No.2 in assessee`s appeal in ITA No.254/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2010–11, ground No.2 in assessee`s appeal in ITA No.255/RJT/2024, for assessment year Bhavani Industries India LLP ITA Nos.247

SHRI NARENDRA DHARAMDAS GIDWANI,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ADDL. CIT, NFAC, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. After hearing the rival contention of both the parties, we perused the reason for late filing of appeal as submitted in the application for condonation of delay. That we find that there is sufficient cause for filing of the appeal not in time. There is no mistake of the assessee

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

disallowed 15% of Rs.93,22,874/- which comes to Rs.13,98,431/- and added this amount to the total income of the appellant as AOP by order dated 24.03.2025. 5. That the assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee with following observation

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

disallowed 15% of Rs.93,22,874/- which comes to Rs.13,98,431/- and added this amount to the total income of the appellant as AOP by order dated 24.03.2025. 5. That the assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee with following observation

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC);\n(2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC);\n(3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj);\n(4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj);\n(5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC);\n(2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC);\n(3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj);\n(4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj);\n(5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC);\n(2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC);\n(3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj);\n(4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj);\n(5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC);\n(2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC);\n(3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj);\n(4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj);\n(5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC);\n(2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC);\n(3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj);\n(4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj);\n(5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

1). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC);\n(2). CIT v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 367 (SC);\n(3). CIT v. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 532 (Guj);\n(4). CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 (Guj);\n(5). Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, is vague and defective as no limb of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, have been specified in the penalty notice. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that the penalty order is invalid, as the specific limb “concealment of income” or “inaccurate particulars” is not ITA No. 857/Rjt/2025

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI DEEPAK MOHANLAL PURSWANI, RAJKOT

253 254\", \"Kuchiyadad 25\nNagjiNatha\",\" for the period 01/04/1999 to 31/03/2099\n1. Extracts of loose papers\n1. At the outset, I vehemently deny each and every allegation in the show-cause notice\nand deny carrying out any unaccounted transactions, which has been worked out on\nthe basis of so-called account data (Miracle File) seized from the possession of Shri

HARDIKKUMAR MAGANBHAI THUMAR,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 625/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 1(1)(1),/Rkt. 360360.Gujarat It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Axupt8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026

1)(a) of Rs. 12,508/- The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 25 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed condonation of delay of application. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that the assessee is a manufacture of textile other than handloom items

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

CHINTAN DWARKADAS CHOTAI,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

1,12,482/-) to the charitable trust, i.e. All India Education Charitable Trust during the assessment year 2019-20. Accordingly, the AO was concluded that the assessee had obtained accommodation entry in the form of charitable trust of Rs.1,12,482/- from All India Education Charitable Trust during the FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20. Therefore, proceedings

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

disallowed as revenue and treated as capital expenditure Apex Irrigation 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 461 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant para of the application for delay is as under; “1. The Deponent APEX IRRIGATION is the PARTNERSHIP FIRM