SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (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

SHREE N H ENTERPRISES,RAJKOT vs. PCIT-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. 227/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree N. H. Enterprises बनाम/ Pcit-1, D-101, Golden Portico Apartment, Dr. Income Tax Office, Vs. Madhapar Circle, Morbi Road, Rajkot- Rajkot-360007 360007 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Adlfs7019K "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (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) सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 20/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

section 263 of the Act, to revise the assessment order should be quashed. 4 Shree N. H. Enterprises vs. PCIT 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessing officer, disallowed 25% of bogus purchases, however, as per Ld. PCIT 100% purchases, which were bogus, should have been disallowed by the assessing officer, therefore

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 258/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 M/s. Premji Valji & Sons (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment. The confirmation of the reopening is not justified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM vs. KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 594/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Tax, Bbz-N-108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 07/07/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, on dated 30/03/2025. ACIT vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows

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

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

section 69, towards purchase of raw material and manufacturing expenditure in relation to the said unaccounted sales. The addition is duly supported by factual findings of the search action, as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs. Inparticular, the following evidence brings out that the corresponding purchase of raw material (and consequently the manufacturing expenditure related thereto) were also

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

section 69, towards purchase of raw material and manufacturing expenditure in relation to the said unaccounted sales. The addition is duly supported by factual findings of the search action, as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs. Inparticular, the following evidence brings out that the corresponding purchase of raw material (and consequently the manufacturing expenditure related thereto) were also

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

section 69, towards purchase of raw material and manufacturing expenditure in\nrelation to the said unaccounted sales. The addition is duly supported by factual findings of\nthe search action, as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs. Inparticular, the\nfollowing evidence brings out that the corresponding purchase of raw material (and\nconsequently the manufacturing expenditure related thereto) were also

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 06/02/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25/03/2022, u/s 147 r.w.s144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir of Mina Parekh 2. When this

HARESH MOHANLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed, in about terms

250 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act"), dated 19.07.2024, which in turn\narises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act,\ndated 28.06.2019.\n2.\nGrounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:\n`1.The grounds of the appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 10/03/2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA NO. 449 & 469/RJT/2025 Sapna Nainesh Jatania, 2. Both these

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 10/03/2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA NO. 449 & 469/RJT/2025 Sapna Nainesh Jatania, 2. Both these

CHAMPALAL COMPANY,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

250 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which in turn arise\nout of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed

RISHABH STEEL SUPPLIER,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed

PRIYANSI CORPORATION,DIST RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

250 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which in turn arise\nout of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed

OSWAL PETROCHEM,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

250 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which in turn arise\nout of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed

MAHAVIR IMPEX,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed

OSWAL AGRICOMM PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed

SHRI RAMJI HAMIR VIRDA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed