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

reassess the income in respect of issues which have escaped assessment, if such issues come to his notice in the course of proceedings under this Section even though the said issues did not find mention in the reasons recorded and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 14.3 Now coming to the facts of the case before

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

reassess the income in respect of issues which have escaped assessment, if such issues come to his notice in the course of proceedings under this Section even though the said issues did not find mention in the reasons recorded and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 14.3 Now coming to the facts of the case before

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

reassess the income in respect of issues which have escaped assessment, if such issues come to his notice in the course of proceedings under this Section even though the said issues did not find mention in the reasons recorded and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 14.3 Now coming to the facts of the case before

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under

THE ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI VICKY BALKRISHNA MEHTA, RAJKOT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta, Income-Tax, 7Th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Apartment, Royal Park, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Agqpm 6495 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2020 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

reassessment notice and all consequent 17 ACIT Vs. Shri Vicky Balkrishna Mehta AY : 2004-05 proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed; however without order on costs." 10. Thus, in all above cases Courts have held that when the time limit for issuing notice u/s.148 has expired before any amendment in law from a prospective

M/S. SHREEDHAR CONSTRUCTION ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD- 1 (3) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 542/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Shreedhar Construction, The Ito, Vs. 211, Divyam Complex Airodrome Ward-1(3), Road,Jamnagar-361006 ( Gujarat) Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclfs0395R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment notices under section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

112 to 119/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-1999 to 2005-06) Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ Shri Balkrishna Income-tax Ravichandra Mehta Vs. 7th Floor, Mansrovar Central Circle-2, Rajkot Apartment, Royal Park, Kalawad Road, Rajkot .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Dipak Rindani, A.R. Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

reassessed or recomputed as loss than\nthe amount of tax will be calculated on the under reported\nincome as it was the total income.\nThis finding is w.r.t. disallowance of Rs.70,71,531/- of\npreliminary and pre operating expenses charge to revenue\nbefore date of assets put to use and dropping out penalty\nproceedings initiated under section

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment, in paragraph no. 77, Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the provisions of TOLA wherein it is categorically observed that: "The test to determine whether Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 will apply to section 151 of the new regime is this if the time limit of three years from

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

112 (Gujarat) to consolidate his argument that desire to verify the cash deposits cannot be reason to reopen the assessment. 5.7 The provisions of Section 147 requires that the assessing officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and then only, he can issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, I agree with

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

112 (Gujarat) to consolidate his argument that desire to verify the cash deposits cannot be reason to reopen the assessment. 5.7 The provisions of Section 147 requires that the assessing officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and then only, he can issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, I agree with

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

112 (Gujarat) to consolidate his argument that desire to verify the cash deposits cannot be reason to reopen the assessment. 5.7 The provisions of Section 147 requires that the assessing officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment and then only, he can issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. On careful consideration, I agree with

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

Reassessment Order subjected to revision is not erroneous or nor it is prejudicial to interest of the Revenue and hence, impugned Order dt. 05/01/2024 needs to be quashed, ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT 3. The learned PCIT has erred in law and in fact in disregarding the specific inquiry on the shares GLOBAL SECUR undertaken

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

section 54F of the Act and the deduction of Rs. 1,58,97,370/- u/s 54B without obtaining the relevant evidence of fulfillment of respective conditions as mentioned in para 3 above, and the assessee was not able to substantiate the fulfillment of these conditions during revisionary proceedings, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) on 22.12.2011 for Assessment Year