SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

143(3) of the Income tax Act (the Act] passed by the Assistant\ncommissioner of Income tax. Circle -1 Jamnagar [the Ld. assessing officer]\ndetermining the total income of assessee as per normal computation of income at Rs\n50,17,35,726/- against returned income of Rs. 49,85,50,620/- and determining the Book\nprofit u/s 115JB

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.\n(4). Issue No.4, the ld PCIT noticed that the unsecured loans reported

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1) (3),, RAJKOT vs. M/S. TIRUPATI AGENCIES,, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

house property in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 3. ITA No. 362/Rjt/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 is taken as the lead case. 4. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring loss of Rs.10,41,951/- on 31.07.2008 which was initially processed under Section 143(1

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1) (3),, RAJKOT vs. M/S. TIRUPATI AGENCIES,, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

house property in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 3. ITA No. 362/Rjt/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 is taken as the lead case. 4. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring loss of Rs.10,41,951/- on 31.07.2008 which was initially processed under Section 143(1

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1) (3),, RAJKOT vs. M/S. TIRUPATI AGENCIES,, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

house property in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 3. ITA No. 362/Rjt/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 is taken as the lead case. 4. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring loss of Rs.10,41,951/- on 31.07.2008 which was initially processed under Section 143(1

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1) (3),, RAJKOT vs. M/S. TIRUPATI AGENCIES,, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

house property in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 3. ITA No. 362/Rjt/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 is taken as the lead case. 4. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 declaring loss of Rs.10,41,951/- on 31.07.2008 which was initially processed under Section 143(1

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO.-OP. HO.SOC. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bhaktinagar Co-Operative Vs. Pr.Cit-Iii Housing Society Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Meghani Rang Bhavan Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan : Aaaas 2363 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Achary, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit By Exercising His Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 18.2.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Read As Under:

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Pr.C.I.T. u/s. 263 of the l.T. Act is ab initio void being bad in law. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.C.I.T. erred in setting aside the assessment order dated 26th December, 2016 and directing

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

1 of Section 143 of the Act, therefore, assessee has underreported its income to the extent of Rs.1,18,000/-. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to pay penalty on account of under reported income as a consequence of mis-reporting, therefore, the assessing officer imposed the penalty on the assessee to the tune of Rs.72,924/-, under section 270A

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.\n(4). Issue No.4, the ld PCIT noticed that the unsecured loans reported

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)

143(1). 5.15 It is worth to mention in the case that no incriminating document/paper/statement/evidence which suggests that the appellant had a bank account with HSBC Bank in Geneva was found during the search operation undertaken at the residence and business premises of the appellant. This is proved from the fact that the appellant was not shown any evidence /document/statement

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)

143(1). 5.15 It is worth to mention in the case that no incriminating document/paper/statement/evidence which suggests that the appellant had a bank account with HSBC Bank in Geneva was found during the search operation undertaken at the residence and business premises of the appellant. This is proved from the fact that the appellant was not shown any evidence /document/statement

SMT. JANKI KISHAN HINGORANI,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

1), Rajkot ('the AO")to frame fresh assessment. 6. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in setting aside the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act despite the fact that the learned AO has passed assessment order after proper examination and verification of facts on records. 7. The learned PCIT erred in fact

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. ITA No. 27/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 is taken as the lead case. 2. The Ground No. 1 relates to deletion of disallowance made on account of contract cancellation amounting to Rs. 2,80,05,500/-. The appellant, a private