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

143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred to as the "Act"] assessing returned loss as assessed loss. The ACIT, circle has considered the material placed on record and assessed income applying his mind. 2.0 It is to be submitted that we are engaged into the business of letting of hall which is apparent from the deed

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

143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred to as the "Act"] assessing returned loss as assessed loss. The ACIT, circle has considered the material placed on record and assessed income applying his mind. 2.0 It is to be submitted that we are engaged into the business of letting of hall which is apparent from the deed

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

143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred to as the "Act"] assessing returned loss as assessed loss. The ACIT, circle has considered the material placed on record and assessed income applying his mind. 2.0 It is to be submitted that we are engaged into the business of letting of hall which is apparent from the deed

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:

housing projects in order to avail excess deduction of Section 80IB(10) of the Act.In itself, such a claim is a misrepresentation of facts which would have succeeded but for selection of case in scrutiny and detection thereof in assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that misrepresentation has led to underreporting of income, therefore, ld.CIT(A), confirmed

ANILBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

House Property by determining fair market rentable rent on estimation basis. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming disallowance of Interest Expense of Rs.4,97,284/- stating that appellant has not established that borrowed funds are utilized for purpose of business or any interest income received on funds advanced out of only borrowed funds

ASHWINBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

House Property by determining fair market rentable rent on estimation basis. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming disallowance of Interest Expense of Rs.4,97,284/- stating that appellant has not established that borrowed funds are utilized for purpose of business or any interest income received on funds advanced out of only borrowed funds

SOPAN DEVELOPERS,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 Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.96/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Real Estate. The Ld. PCIT, on examination of the assessment records, found that the assessee has closing stock of the properties as on 31 March

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 126/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 2 M/s. Chandrakant H. Kakkad vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the income

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

143(3B) of the Income-taxAct, 1961, was completed on 08.04.2021, by accepting the returned income. 4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short "Ld PCIT"), has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Learned PCIT, on perusal of the assessmentrecords, observed that, during the year under consideration, the assessee

SHRI NITINBHAI T. BHUPTANI, L.I.C,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-4,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountatn Member & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Rjt/2016 & 14/Rjt/2016 & 182/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011, 2011-12 & 2012-13

6. The grievance of the assessee in these grounds are that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of 20% of the convenience expenses. The Ld. counsel for the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal hence they are rejected. 7. In the next fold of grievance, assessee pleaded that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

property)\ninstead of year of receipts without appreciating the facts, evidences found and seized\nduring the course of search and circumstances of the peculiar case.\n4. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) ought to\nhave upheld the order of the A.О.”\n7. The relevant material facts, as culled