M/S FLAMINGO HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]for the Asst.Year 2010-11. 2. The only ground raised by the assessee in the appeal reads as under: 2 “2. The ld.AO has erred in law as well as on facts in determining the total income at Rs.4,14,78,398/- by rejecting

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (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 20/03/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 05/12/2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Kantaben Vajubhai Paghdal, 2. The appeal filed by the assessee

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

1) that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Profits and gains of business, etc.' in respect of the profits or gains of any business, etc., carried on by him. Under sub-section (2), these profits or gains are computed after making certain allowances. Clause (xi) allows deduc tion of bad and doubtful business debts

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

1) that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Profits and gains of business, etc.' in respect of the profits or gains of any business, etc., carried on by him. Under sub-section (2), these profits or gains are computed after making certain allowances. Clause (xi) allows deduc tion of bad and doubtful business debts

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)

1. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 is bad in law as well as on facts as the order is passed against the principles of natural justice, though the assessee has specifically prayed to grant an opportunity of heard and the same was not granted. Thus

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250/- had been received in respect of sale of aforesaid land and 50% of the share thereof was received by the assessee. On verification of the return of income filed by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee had not offered the profit earned from the above sale consideration in his return of income. Since the capital gains arising

RADHIKA JEWELLERS,RAJKOT vs. DY.CIT 2 (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 10.09.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2017. 2. The grounds

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

250/- and subsequently these shares were sold for sum of Rs.82,02,300/-. The resultant capital gains of Rs.80,06,545/-was claimed exempted u/s 10(38). The assessing officer alleged it to be penny stock and he claimed that the trading in such stock was controlled by few operators and rise in prices of this stock was artificially created

MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

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 21/07/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 24/09/2024 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

SHRI CHHAGANBHAI MULJIBHAI PATOLIYA,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.477/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Chhaganbhai Muljibhai Patoliya, Vs The Ito Ward 1(2)(3), Radhe Park, Shreeji School, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, . Amarnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 Jetpur (Gujarat) - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ddrpp2365A (Appellant) (Respondent)

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 30/06/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 23/12/2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised

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 is bad in law as well as on the facts as it has erred in making additions under Sections 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to 27,50,000/- and alleging unexplained investments and unexplained money, respectively without considering the fact that the assessee duly furnished documentary evidence from the third party including bank statements and confirmation

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

1,78,060.00 as per the inventory of the stock found during the course of survey but the same were not shown in the books of accounts. Likewise, these wristwatches were not available physically. Thus, it was concluded by the learned CIT that these have been sold without recording the same in the A.Y.2010-11 books of accounts. Accordingly, the learned

SHRI VASANTRAI PURSOTAM KACHALIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

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) (‘CIT(A)’), dated 04.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 23.11.2018. Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia 2. Although, this appeal filed

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

AMIBEN RAJESHKUMAR PUNATAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.24/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar, बनाम/ Ito, Ashish, 41-New Jagnath Plot, Vs Ward – 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001(Gujarat) Rajkot "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahrpp4181F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/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) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 03.08.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 30.03.2022. 2. The assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

1 has held that in a case where source of investment/ expenditure is clearly identifiable and alleged undisclosed assets has no independent existence of its own or there is no separate physical identity of such investment/expenditure then first was to be taxed is the undisclosed business receipts invested in unidentifiable unaccounted assets and only on failure it should be considered

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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 21/05/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 24/09/2021 u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT vs. LAJVANTIBEN RAJABHAI HINDUJA, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 15.12.2023,which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)of the Income Tax Act,1961, vide order dated 24.12.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: (1) "Whether, on the facts