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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

carried forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A or sub-section (3) of section 80J." 4. For deciding this issue

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

carried out in the stock market through Religare Financial Services. However, the assessee has disclosed the income from the shipping business before the investigation report. However, the impugned income from the shipping business was set of against the share trading loss which was arising from the same bank account in which the transactions of shipping business were recorded. As such

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

carried out in the stock market through Religare Financial Services. However, the assessee has disclosed the income from the shipping business before the investigation report. However, the impugned income from the shipping business was set of against the share trading loss which was arising from the same bank account in which the transactions of shipping business were recorded. As such

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

carried out in the stock market through Religare Financial Services. However, the assessee has disclosed the income from the shipping business before the investigation report. However, the impugned income from the shipping business was set of against the share trading loss which was arising from the same bank account in which the transactions of shipping business were recorded. As such

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

carried out in the stock market through Religare Financial Services. However, the assessee has disclosed the income from the shipping business before the investigation report. However, the impugned income from the shipping business was set of against the share trading loss which was arising from the same bank account in which the transactions of shipping business were recorded. As such

ABDULKADAR HAJIAHMED VADIWALA,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

carried forwarded expense in relation stock only and not claimed in this year, hence we request your honour to recheck your observation and consider the matter again.” 6. However, the ld. Pr.CIT rejected the above contentions of the assessee and observed that the assessee claimed significant improvement costs on the sold properties but did not submit documentary evidences during

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)

carried out at several places. When the disclosure is made as a precautionary measure, the same is obviously conditional and the addition thereof can be made only if some corroborating material is found in the search. Hence, such an addition is uncalled for. 5.29 It has also been emphasized that on revocation of PO, the ADIT had confronted the assessee

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)

carried out at several places. When the disclosure is made as a precautionary measure, the same is obviously conditional and the addition thereof can be made only if some corroborating material is found in the search. Hence, such an addition is uncalled for. 5.29 It has also been emphasized that on revocation of PO, the ADIT had confronted the assessee

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed, the action of the assessing officer, observing as follows: “6.1 I have gone through the facts of the entire case. In brief it can be stated that the return of income filed by the appellant was processed u/s 143(1) after making some adjustment to the returned

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

forward to subsequent years. 2 ITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. 5. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short "Ld PCIT") exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On verification of the assessment records, it was noticed by the learned PCIT that 68,54,519 equity shares have been

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:

carried the matter, in appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) noticed that the facts of the assessee, make it clear that regular electricity and maintenance charges were sought to be passed off, as part of income from developing and building housing projects in order to avail excess

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI ANIRUDDHSINH J. SOLANKI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

reassessment proceedings, the assessee has not find any details before the Assessing Officer but whereas filed various details during the Remand proceedings. The assessee failed to submit confirmation from the parties from whom it has claimed cash receipts, PAN of such parties. In absence of the same, the genuineness of the credit transactions is not proved beyond doubt. Thus

SHRI ANIRUDDHSINH J. SOLANKI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

reassessment proceedings, the assessee has not find any details before the Assessing Officer but whereas filed various details during the Remand proceedings. The assessee failed to submit confirmation from the parties from whom it has claimed cash receipts, PAN of such parties. In absence of the same, the genuineness of the credit transactions is not proved beyond doubt. Thus

SHRI SANDIP HARKISHAN MARWADI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 164/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Sandip Harkishan Marwadi Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Cas, Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), 1St Floor, "Sakar", Income Tax Office, Racecourse Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Road, Sadar, Rajkot - 360001. Opp. Rajkumar College, Gujarat Rajkot-360001,(Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm1302R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26 / 03 /2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/ 04 /2026

loss brought in works out to Rs. 60,88,450/- Further, the brokers had admitted to have earned commission @ 0.5 to 2% on such accommodation. The assessee has not come forward to explain as to how much commission he has paid. However, taking the commission of 1%, the unexplained expenditure due to the above adjustments works

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. RK INFRALINK LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, ground No. 3 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) M/S. R K Infralink Llp The Dcit, Cc-1, R K Empire, Nr. Mavdi Circle, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, M Rajkot 360001 G Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfr9975L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

loss of Rs.48,098/-. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act has been issued and served on 18.12.2022, on the e-filing portal of the assessee. Subsequent notice under section 142(1) of the Act, have been issued from time to time, seeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying

R K INFRALINK LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground No. 3 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) M/S. R K Infralink Llp The Dcit, Cc-1, R K Empire, Nr. Mavdi Circle, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, M Rajkot 360001 G Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfr9975L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

loss of Rs.48,098/-. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act has been issued and served on 18.12.2022, on the e-filing portal of the assessee. Subsequent notice under section 142(1) of the Act, have been issued from time to time, seeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying

R K INFRALINK LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJOKT

In the result, ground No. 3 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) M/S. R K Infralink Llp The Dcit, Cc-1, R K Empire, Nr. Mavdi Circle, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, M Rajkot 360001 G Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfr9975L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

loss of Rs.48,098/-. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act has been issued and served on 18.12.2022, on the e-filing portal of the assessee. Subsequent notice under section 142(1) of the Act, have been issued from time to time, seeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying

R K INFRALINK LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground No. 3 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) M/S. R K Infralink Llp The Dcit, Cc-1, R K Empire, Nr. Mavdi Circle, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, M Rajkot 360001 G Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfr9975L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

loss of Rs.48,098/-. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act has been issued and served on 18.12.2022, on the e-filing portal of the assessee. Subsequent notice under section 142(1) of the Act, have been issued from time to time, seeking primary as well as further details from the assessee for carrying