THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHILPA ROHIT THAKKAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 009-10) Smt.Shilpa Rohit Thakkar The Income Tax बनाम/ 702, Guruprasad Appt. Officer Vs. B/H. Shiv Ice Cream Ward-3(4) Race Course Ring Road Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt 2819 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

capital gain, and other sources. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has received rental income from DHL Express (India) Pvt.Ltd. amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- which was not disclosed in the income-tax return. The AO also got confirmation from DHL Express (India) Pvt.Ltd. for the payment of rent to the assessee of Rs.2

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. 6

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.

6. The assessee before the learned CIT-A submitted that the actual transaction for the transfer of the property was completed as on 2nd April 2011, though the sale deed was executed on 26-05-2011 but the possession was handed over on a later date. As such the delay has happened for the reason that the assessee was using

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

6. Respectfully following the order above of the ITAT, we reverse the order of the authorities below and accordingly hold that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash the same. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8. Thus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant was staying at Dubai and residing there almost for 90 years. He did all his business activities in Dubai and the entire earning throughout his lifetime was from his business activities done abroad. During his lifetime the assessee being the then resident of Dubai has though

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant was staying at Dubai and residing there almost for 90 years. He did all his business activities in Dubai and the entire earning throughout his lifetime was from his business activities done abroad. During his lifetime the assessee being the then resident of Dubai has though

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant was staying at Dubai and residing there almost for 90 years. He did all his business activities in Dubai and the entire earning throughout his lifetime was from his business activities done abroad. During his lifetime the assessee being the then resident of Dubai has though

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant was staying at Dubai and residing there almost for 90 years. He did all his business activities in Dubai and the entire earning throughout his lifetime was from his business activities done abroad. During his lifetime the assessee being the then resident of Dubai has though

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