RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) of the Act. On its choosing not to exercise such powers, it was erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to make addition of a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-, despite such cogent evidences having been put-forth by the assessee. Both the authorities have concurrently held the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) of the Act. On its choosing not to exercise such powers, it was erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to make addition of a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-, despite such cogent evidences having been put-forth by the assessee. Both the authorities have concurrently held the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover

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)

133(6) of the Act. 10. The ld Counsel further submitted that all the evidences are third- party evidences and it satisfy the requirement of the section 10(38) of the Act and without disproving the evidence the law does not empower the assessing officer without bringing anything on record to disbelieve the long term capital gain

KISHORBHAI VAGHJIBHAI PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gain. In such a situation, the AO shall refer the valuation of A.Y. 2006-07 4 the capital assets to the Departmental Valuation Officer. Thus it was prayed by the Ld. AR for the assessee to refer the matter to the DPO for the purpose of the valuation of the property in order to work out the amount of sale

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

capital gain for the year under consideration [assessment year 2009–10]. Moreover he had sold agricultural land, based on which the case was selected for scrutiny under the AIR category with the remark “AO should examine the source of investment in property as appearing in AIR. Taxability of sale of property as reported in AIR, should be examined

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

capital gain for the year under consideration [assessment year 2009–10]. Moreover he had sold agricultural land, based on which the case was selected for scrutiny under the AIR category with the remark “AO should examine the source of investment in property as appearing in AIR. Taxability of sale of property as reported in AIR, should be examined

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S S. KUMAR,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

capital gain on sale of this wind mill, thus calculated by the AO is of Rs.3,09,36,845/-. 5. Against the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue came before us and stated that learned CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,66,90,000/- on account of depreciation claimed on windmill. The learned CIT.D.R

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

THE ITO, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MALDEBHAI NARANBHAI VAROTARIA,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 169/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Maldebhai Naranbhai Varotaria, Ward-1(3), Vs. Madhav Corporation, Jamnagar 3Rd Floor, Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Corner, Jamnagar.

gain arising on sale of land. Hence the appellant is very much eligible for exemption. The court cases cited by the appellant too are in his favour. Hence the AO is directed to allow exemption claimed by the appellant. 8 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Both

AAMNABEN GAFAR MADKIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(10), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.761/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Amana Gafar Madakiya Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar, Ghela Patel Delo, Head Post Aaykar Bhawan, Nr Subhas Office, Ghachiwad, Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Jamnagar-361001 Highway, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bylpm2878L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per A. L. Saini, Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 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 07.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 30/03/2022, U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

133(6), which tantamount to that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 is invalid as it was solely based on the "reason to suspect" and not "reason to believe". 5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in law by accepting the AO's action of non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) which is sine qua non for assessment

MAVANI NILESH HARISHBHAI HUF,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to IDBI Bank Ltd., Porbandar branch to give details of cash deposits in old demonetized currency of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-, statement of accounts and KYC details and on receipt of the reply from the bank it was verified that the appellant had made cash deposit

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

133 for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the returns so filed by the said assessee were accepted for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 as appearing from Page 137 to 143 of the Paper Book filed before us. It is relevant to mention that none of these orders of assessment speaks of protective assessment against him. The interest

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and\nAssessing Officer made following addition:\n34\n1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\n2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\ni.\nAddition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-.\nii.\nAddition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-.\nOn appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and\nAssessing Officer made following addition:\n34\nH\nBHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\nDHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\ni.\nAddition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-.\nii.\nAddition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-.\nOn appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground