FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

natural justice. 3. The Hon’ble Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot has erred in law as well as on facts in passing a cryptic order u/s 263 of the Act bereft of any justifiable reasoning without even controverting the legal submissions of the appellant as to the non-application of Section 68 of the Act to the capital receipts prior

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

Disallowance as per (iv) Rs. 63,75,068 Total Income Rs. 32,36,09,980/- Rs. 18,38,69,576/- Round off Rs. 18,38,69,580/- 13 ITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. 16. Therefore, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted that even in appeal effect order u/s 263 r.w.s 143(3), passed the assessing officer

A.C.I.T CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT vs. SANSKAR DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of interest on TDS of Rs.2,847/-. It appears from the original assessment order that the issue under dispute in re-assessment order was not subject matter of original limited scrutiny assessment proceedings, hence the assessing officer has not given any finding on the issues raised under re-assessment order either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, there is no change

M/S. ICONIC INFRABUILD LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

natural justice is not sustainable in law, and is directed to be quashed on this count alone. 9. Having held so, the ld.counsel for the assessee also argued on the merits of the case. 10. He pointed out that revisionary power was exercised by the ld.Pr.CIT noting error in the assessment order that huge sundry creditors outstanding to the tune

SHRI NARENDRA DHARAMDAS GIDWANI,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ADDL. CIT, NFAC, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

justice inter-alia has two essential Narendra D. Gidwani ingredients, firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by action of authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: 1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating into

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: 1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating into

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: 1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating into

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: 1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating into

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: 1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating into

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: 1.Ground No.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that proceedings u/s 148 culminating into

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

natural justice. Further, there was no clinching evidence with the Department to demonstrate that 'on money/ cash receipt calculated out of impounded/seized material found during the course of search and seizure is deserved to be considered as net profit. In other words, it is a cumulative analysis of all the facts at the end of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

natural justice. Further, there was no clinching evidence with the Department to demonstrate that 'on money/ cash receipt calculated out of impounded/seized material found during the course of search and seizure is deserved to be considered as net profit. In other words, it is a cumulative analysis of all the facts at the end of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice. Therefore, there is no substance in the reasons given by the appellant about his inability to produce the said evidence The additional evidence furnished therefore, cannot be admitted and are rejected Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajat Bansal vs. CiT [2011] 200 taxman

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice. Therefore, there is no substance in the reasons given by the appellant about his inability to produce the said evidence The additional evidence furnished therefore, cannot be admitted and are rejected Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajat Bansal vs. CiT [2011] 200 taxman

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

natural justice. Therefore, there is no substance in the reasons given by the appellant about his inability to produce the said evidence The additional evidence furnished therefore, cannot be admitted and are rejected Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajat Bansal vs. CiT [2011] 200 taxman