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

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the\ndepreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

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

deduction under chapter VI of Rs.1,10,000/-. The case was selected for u/s 147 for reopening the case for reassessment

SHRI NAGICHANA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,AT. NAGICHANA, TAL. MANGROL, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deduction u/s 80P, in theassessee`s case is correct. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 11. Shri D.M. Rindani, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that the reasons were recorded on different footing to tax the cash credit transaction to the tune of Rs.2,87,70,000/-. However

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:

deducted at source on such sale of property then there was no occasion to file return of income. Second issue consideration before us is if penalty is leviable, then is the present case one of under-reporting of income, thereby attracting tax @ 50% on such underreported income or is it a case of misreporting of income, thereby attracting penalty

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

deducting the TDS u/s 194A of the Act; d) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of enquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131 to the lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions; e) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary material/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal

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

deducting the TDS\nu/s 194A of the Act;\nd) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of\nenquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131_to\nthe lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions;\ne) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary\nmaterial/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal and also

JAY PRABHUDAS VITHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

deducted\nby the GST authority and their GSTR-3B has placed on record. We further\nnote that during the assessment proceeding, the AO has issued notice u/s.\n133(6) of the Act and after enquiry of entire facts, the assessment computed\nthat nothing wrong has been done by the assessee. The assessee has drawn\nour attention to following judgement

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

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

deduction under section\n80HHC or section 80HHD; so, however, that such amounts are computed in the manner\nspecified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) of section 80HHC or sub-section (3) of section\n80HHD, as the case may be; or\n(iv)\nthe amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation which would be required

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

reassessment\nproceedings in the present case is valid in law. While passing the assessment\norder, the assessing officer has also observed that search was carried at the\nassessee's premises on 24-08-2021 and pursuant to the search, notice under\nSection 148 of the Act was issued in case of assessee. As search was carried out\nin the case

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

reassessment\nproceedings in the present case is valid in law. While passing the assessment\norder, the assessing officer has also observed that search was carried at the\nassessee's premises on 24-08-2021 and pursuant to the search, notice under\nSection 148 of the Act was issued in case of assessee. As search was carried out\nin the case

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

reassessment\nproceedings in the present case is valid in law. While passing the assessment\norder, the assessing officer has also observed that search was carried at the\nassessee's premises on 24-08-2021 and pursuant to the search, notice under\nSection 148 of the Act was issued in case of assessee. As search was carried out\nin the case

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

reassessment\nproceedings in the present case is valid in law. While passing the assessment\norder, the assessing officer has also observed that search was carried at the\nassessee's premises on 24-08-2021 and pursuant to the search, notice under\nSection 148 of the Act was issued in case of assessee. As search was carried out\nin the case

K.G.N.ENTERPRISE,VERAVAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VERAVAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.181/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2019-20 K.G.N. Enterprise बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Al Iraki Bageraza Lucky Colony, Vs Ward – 4, Range 201, Junagarh, Ner Somnathtokish, Behind Amit Veraval Akela Clinic, Veraval, Gir Somnath, Gujarat - 362264 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aatfk8798E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. Ar राज"की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश/Order

deducted. Hence, we have shown the Turnover of FY 2018-19 in FY 2019-20& we have not suppressed or no income has been escaped assessment. Thus, we hereby humbly request you to consider the above information and Pardon." 5.However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee has shown total sales

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from