SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 14.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 25.03.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 1. The Learned CIT (A) gravely erred

SUNBOND CERAMIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. JCIT, MORBI RANGE, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal), dated 18.09.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 28.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 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)

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. 315/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National 2,01,930/- Faceless Appeal

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)

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 1,23,470/- Faceless

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

250 Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to\nas 'the Act'), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11,\nAhmedabad [in short 'Ld.CIT(A)' on different dates, which in turn arise out of\nseparate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 153A/\n153C/143(3)/ 144 of the Act.\n2. Since, the issues involved

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

250 read with section 251 of the Act.” I.T.A No. 23/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 6 Shri Trambakpur Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT(CPC) 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) denying assessee’s claim of exemption under section 80P of the Act, 6. Before

SHRI JAYANTILAL RUDABHAI BHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Jayantilal Rudabhai Bhalani Ito, Ward-1(3) Bilnath Krupa Vs Jamnagar. Opp: Khodiyar Colony Air Force Road, Nilkamal Colony Jamanagar 361 008. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

250/- contrary to the provisions of section 44AD hence the same may kindly be deleted. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact to initiate proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) hence the same may be directed to drop.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual deriving income from small contract

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29.05.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.04.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2017. 2. The grounds

VINAYAKAANJNEY IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 13.03.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961, vide order dated 28.12.2019. 2. At the outset Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that Assessing Officer has made addition to the tune

SHRI LALITBHAI ASHUMAL GANGWANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 in respect of unexplained cash deposits. The penalty is therefore sustained on merits too. 6) In the result, the appeal is to be treated dismissed both for want of prosecution and on merit.” 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250

SHRI LALITBHAI ASHUMAL GANGWANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 in respect of unexplained cash deposits. The penalty is therefore sustained on merits too. 6) In the result, the appeal is to be treated dismissed both for want of prosecution and on merit.” 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250

SHRI LALITBHAI ASHUMAL GANGWANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 in respect of unexplained cash deposits. The penalty is therefore sustained on merits too. 6) In the result, the appeal is to be treated dismissed both for want of prosecution and on merit.” 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

4 Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya vs. Pr. CIT already considered by Ld. CIT(Appeals), the PCIT cannot again consider the issue again in revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The counsel for the assessee also argued that the Rajkot ITAT has held that Revenue records do not conclusively determine the nature of agricultural produce and the Department

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [in short ‘Ld. PCIT’], exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On verification of records, it was observed by ld PCIT that the assessee had introduced huge amount in the company in the form of share application money amounting to Rs.12

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

250/- Security Transaction Tax 20.56/- Shares Transaction Expense 7777.80 Total 1,65,048.36/- The assessee submitted copy of contract note received from M/s Sharukh N. Tara, vide paper book page no.14 to 15.Immediately after purchasing the shares a request letter regarding demat account details was duly sent to assessee by the Broker M/s. Sharukh N. Tara which is placed

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties