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

TDS-2 v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT (International Taxation) [2020] (115 taxmann.com 289) (Madras)  Smt. Smriti Kedia v. UOI [2012] (20 taxmann.com 426) (Calcutta) 6. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed without fulfilling the jurisdictional compliances is vague and bad-in-law. e) The approval accorded by the designated authority

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

TDS-2 v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 345 (Mumbai - Trib.)  Abdul Azeez Haroon v. DCIT (International Taxation) [2020] (115 taxmann.com 289) (Madras)  Smt. Smriti Kedia v. UOI [2012] (20 taxmann.com 426) (Calcutta) 6. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed without fulfilling the jurisdictional compliances is vague and bad-in-law. e) The approval accorded by the designated authority

M/S COBRA KCL JV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, TDS- CIRCLE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

150 Feet Ring Road, Vs. Rajkot. [PAN – AAGFC 3289 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri D.M. Rindani, AR Revenue by Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the CIT(A), Jamnagar

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)

150 ITR 513 "An order could be said to be erroneous when either it did not decide a point and record a finding on an issue which ought to have been done or decided it wrongly." 13. The ld. PCIT also noted that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted by which scope

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged\ntransactions made.\n(viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted\nthe figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice.\nHowever, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary\nevidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

TDS return etc. of the parties with whom alleged transactions made. (viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted the figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT vs. SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 649 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Tax, Cir-1(1), Rajkot Ltd. Vs. Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, S. No. 150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [Pan No.: Aancs3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [PAN No.: AANCS3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. A. L. Saini

RAVIRAJSINH KISHORSINH JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant are hereby Dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 48/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja Vs. Adit Cpc 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 312 Silver Chambers, Tagore Road, Rajkot – 630002 (Gujrat) 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, House Rd, Uttarahali Hobli, Karnataka - 560100 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahjpj0961H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 03/12/2021, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, on dated 03/02/2020. Ravirajsinh Kishorsinh Jadeja The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: - 1

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

A.C.I.T CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT vs. SANSKAR DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1,88,53,335/-. Further the assessing officer noted that the closing stock was under reported by the assessee to the tune of Rs.5,55,35,170/-, hence the same was added as income of assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted, before learned CIT( A) that assessing officer has estimated profit on percentage completion method