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

144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee\nthat in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would\napply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in\nentertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before\nthe CIT(A) challenging the adjustments

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

144B of the Income tax Act, 1961, on 28th March 2022, accepting returned income of Rs.10,26,350/- 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Pr.CIT 3 learned PCIT, on perusal of case records, it was noticed

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide order dated 26.03.2024. 2. The grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue are follows: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,47,91,594/-, made by the assessing officer resorting to the provisions

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

144B of the Act, dated 14.03.2025. In this appeal effect order, the assessee again failed to file the documentary evidence to prove the source of the source in respect of share capital/share premium, and source in respect of unsecured loan. The findings of the assessing officer in the appeal effect order is reproduced below for ready reference: “3.6 Summary

SHIV EXTRUSION,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 646/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Extrusion Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No.3978 Phase Iiiroad Income Tax Office, Ito Ward No.-R Dared, Jamnagar 2(10), Jamnagar, Income 361004, Gujarat, India, Jamnagar Tax Office, Shiv Smruti, Jamnagar, Jamnagar, Gujarat, 361008, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkfs7199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ramesh M. Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026

144B of the I.T. Act. Shiv Extrusion vs. ITO 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1. 1. Jurisdictional Defects (Limitation and Threshold Failure) 1. Invalid Assumption of Jurisdiction due to Retrospective Failure of Monetary Tinreshold (Section 149(1)(b)): The NFAC erred in sustaining the reassessment initiated under the extended period of limitation prescribed

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

144B of the I.T. Act, on dated 12/09/2022. Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1. Addition of Rs. 7,40,673/- u/s 40(a)(ia) & Variation u/s 143(1)(a) of Rs. 12,508/- The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 25 days

BAN LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B of the Income-tax Act, on 01.09.2021, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore directed the assessing officer to make fresh assessment. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that Ld. PCIT has exercised

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

144B of the Act, dated 23/12/2022 for A.Y. 2021-22 to the extent of the issues mentioned and discussed above and directed the assessing officer to conduct detailed verification of the purchases from eleven entities flagged as suspicious and reassess the income of the assessee. 9.Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

144B of the Act, dated 23/12/2022 for A.Y. 2021-22 to the extent of the issues mentioned and discussed above and directed the assessing officer to conduct detailed verification of the purchases from eleven entities flagged as suspicious and reassess the income of the assessee. 9.Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before

AKSHAR JEWELLERS,JUNAGADH vs. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

144B of the Act of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n2.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the rejection of books of account\nu/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed estimation of Gross Profit Rate @\n8% and wrongly made addition of Rs. 3,68,10,310/- on estimation basis.\n4.That

AMARDEEP EXPORTS,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(3), JNR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 19.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse, are as follows: “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 81,74,966/-- based on estimate

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

Section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 09.09.2022. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: ITA No.340/RJT/2024 - A.Y. 2020-21 Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Trust vs. ITO “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the action

JITENDRASINH ZALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

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

144B of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act') dated 06/09/2022, accepting the returned income. 4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.On perusal of the case records, the ld.PCIT noticed the following discrepancies: (i)Fin Tech Corporation

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

144B of the Act is required to be followed which duly eliminates direct interaction between the taxpayer and the tax authorities. Whereas the assessment in the present case is conducted by violating the provisions of section 151A of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act is required to be quashed. 8. In this regards, reliance is placed

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

144B of the Act is required to be followed which duly eliminates direct interaction between the taxpayer and the tax authorities. Whereas the assessment in the present case is conducted by violating the provisions of section 151A of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act is required to be quashed. 8. In this regards, reliance is placed

P P CORPORATION,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 08/05/2021, accepting\nreturned income of Rs. NIL.\n3. Later on, learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax( in brief \"Ld.\nPCIT\"), exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income tax Act\n1961. On perusal of case records, it was noticed by the ld. PCIT that during the\nprevious year 2017-18, relevant

NIHIL NITINBHAI BHUPTANI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

144B of the Act on 17.12.2024. Nihil N. Bhuptani 2. Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act. The reopening is not justified 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the disallowing Rs 140000 being

ACTIONWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-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.317/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Actionware India Pvt. Ltd. The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम 316, Sagar Arcade Rajkot. Gandal Road Vs. Opp: Union Bank Of India Rajkot 360 002 (Gujarat) Pan : Aacck 3445 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as the genuineness of the transaction is not proved. 3.In this case the assessment order has been passed without making due inquiry/verification.Hence, in terms of Explanation 2 to sec. 263, such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 4. The above facts show that

VALOUR AUTOPACK,GOR KHIJADIYA, MORBI GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 29.11.2022 accepting returned income of Rs.44,17,760/-. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On perusal of Form No. 3CD of Audit Report (at Sr. No. 31(a)), it was noticed