MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

u/s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 07/05/2021. 3.3. On further verification, as per information from ITO (CIB)-1, Mumbai, it is noticed that out of nine assessees, who had taken bogus long term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

u/s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 07/05/2021. 3.3. On further verification, as per information from ITO (CIB)-1, Mumbai, it is noticed that out of nine assessees, who had taken bogus long term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

u/s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 07/05/2021. 3.3. On further verification, as per information from ITO (CIB)-1, Mumbai, it is noticed that out of nine assessees, who had taken bogus long term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

u/s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 07/05/2021. 3.3. On further verification, as per information from ITO (CIB)-1, Mumbai, it is noticed that out of nine assessees, who had taken bogus long term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case

GLOBAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Global Extrusions Private Limited. Vs. Pcit Jamnagar, Ca Govind Sonecha Taranjali Building, “S&A House”, Near Golden City, Jamnagar 361008 80Ft Road, Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section Police Headquarters, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm4319E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. (Cit)Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025

revise the assessment order. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 dated 09.02.2024 of the Act, the appellant has filed this appeal before us. Global extrusions pvt. Ltd. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR has submitted that a notice issued on account bogus purchase

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

purchase of Plant & Machinery.\nThis credit amount requires to be added u/s 68 being unaccounted money\nintroduced in the books of account in the garb of cash sales. It is quite\nevident from the details available on record that the then assessing officer\nfailed to examine this issue and failed to make required addition by\ncarrying out proper investigation

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary that all the investment made in penny stock is treated

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary that all the investment made in penny stock is treated

PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.102/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Flat No.1, Prabhudeep Apartment Income Tax, Jamanagar. Air Force-2 Road Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Agzpv6946P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

revision order from page no.2 to 5. 5. In response to the notice of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee submitted its written submissions before the ld. Pr. CIT, along with documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that various notices issued by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings, to enquiry the issue, which are as follows: (a). Notice u/s.142

JAY PRABHUDAS VITHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

263 of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n04/12/2024, requesting an explanation as to why the assessment order u/s 143(3)\nrws 144B of the Act dated 24/12/2022 should not be revised, which are as under:\n\"Please refer to the above\n2 In this case, it is observed that Return of Income for the AY under\nconsideration

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus expenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed income u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

SOHAM PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

bogus expenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed income u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

CHUNILAL GOVIND VANIK,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

bogus expenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed income u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

bogus expenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed income u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

bogus expenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed income u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

bogus expenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed income u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

revised on 09/03/2018, declaring total loss of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, claiming Investment Allowance u/s 32AC of the Income Tax Act. The case has been selected for Complete Scrutiny (CASS) specifically to examine the followings:\n1) Whether outward foreign remittance is from disclosed sources and appropriate withholding and reporting obligation have been complied with;\n2) Whether investment and income

KHUSHBOO JAYKUMAR VITHLANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 04/12/2024, requesting an explanation as to why the assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 144B of the Act dated 24/12/2022 should not be revised, which are as under: "Please refer to the above 2 In this case, it is observed that Return of Income for the AY under consideration

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

revision proceedings initiated by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act may be quashed. 14. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the PCIT has passed a speaking order u/s 263 after considering the submission of the assessee made during 263 proceedings. In the order he has given elaborate findings regarding the failure made