MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 280/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki बनाम Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Rajkot, Kolki So, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360470 स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Astpc9150G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 12.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

section 148A and sec. 148 of the IT Act 1961 and therefore the assessment made may please be quashed. 07. That the assessee is an agriculturist and sold the agriculture land which is exempt however without appreciating the facts, and without making further inquiry addition made as short term capital gain of Rs 66,78,350/- is against the documents

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time of hearing has not advanced

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time of hearing has not advanced

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time of hearing has not advanced

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the I. T. Act,1961. 7. That, the findings of the learned ,AO and CIT (A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 21. At the outset, we note that the learned AR at the time of hearing has not advanced

SHRI IKBALBHAI JUMABHAI KHIRANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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 30.08.2024, which Shri Ikabalbhai Jumabhai Khirani vs. ITO in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 14.03.2023. 2. Grounds of appeal raised