THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

4) as clarified by the said explanation. The deductions and exemptions are special benefits and, as discussed earlier, it could be allowed only if the assessee is found to be eligible for the same on merit. If any deduction was wrongly allowed in the previous assessments the I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

4) as clarified by the said explanation. The deductions and exemptions are special benefits and, as discussed earlier, it could be allowed only if the assessee is found to be eligible for the same on merit. If any deduction was wrongly allowed in the previous assessments the I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards." 65 Section 151 imposes

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards." 65 Section 151 imposes

ATUL VRAJLAL KARIA,RAJKOT vs. AC / DC (INT.TXN), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.133/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vrajlal Karia Ac/Dc (Int. Txn), बनाम C/O. D.S. Karia & Co. Ca, 203, Rajkot Cosmo Complex, Mahila College Vs. Chowk, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Adwpk6568J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

4 147 SCN 30/10/2019 AC/DC (INT.TXN) RAJKOT 5 147 SCN 05/11/2019 AC/DC (INT.TXN) RAJKOT 6 Issue Letter 05/11/2019 AC/DC (INT.TXN) RAJKOT 7 147 SCN 16/11/2019 AC/DC (INT.TXN) RAJKOT A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 27/08/2019 issued by the other Income Tax Officer (ITO) – 2 which has been filed by the assessee, before the Bench, which is placed

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for Assessment

4) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that denial of deduction only because the assessee is subject to search is totally without ITA Nos. 218/Rjt/2015 & 204/Rjt/2015 (Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) 7 & (ACIT vs. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y. 2008-09 jurisdiction. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the challenge to jurisdiction with the following observations: “6. The decisions

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

4) of the Act. However, Ld. I.T.A Nos. 287, 288, 340 & 341/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 8 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “6. The decisions relied by the appellant were carefully gone through and it was observed that the contents

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

4) of the Act. However, Ld. I.T.A Nos. 287, 288, 340 & 341/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 8 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “6. The decisions relied by the appellant were carefully gone through and it was observed that the contents

M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LIMITED.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

4) of the Act. However, Ld. I.T.A Nos. 287, 288, 340 & 341/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 8 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “6. The decisions relied by the appellant were carefully gone through and it was observed that the contents

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

4) of the Act. However, Ld. I.T.A Nos. 287, 288, 340 & 341/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 8 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Backbone Projects Ltd. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “6. The decisions relied by the appellant were carefully gone through and it was observed that the contents

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)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter in issue. Direct

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)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter in issue. Direct

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

DHANJI MURJI HIRANI,KUTCH vs. ITO.(INT.TXN)GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.131/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dhanji Murji Hirani, Baladia Ito (Int.Txn), बनाम Bhuj, Kutch, Gandhidham Gujarat 370427 Vs. Pan : Afaph0463B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr

section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 02.12.2024. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. That, the reassessment u/s 148 of the I.T. Act has wrongly been made without having any information in possession. 2. That, the jurisdiction has been transferred from Bhavnagar

JITENDRABHAI BHAGVANBHAI DALVADI,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No. 8: That, the reasons recorded are undated and unsigned and therefore, the assessment reopened on the basis of such reasons is bad-in- law. 4. Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, pleads that above additional ground may be admitted in the interest of natural justice and equity and fair

LATE OGHADBHAI KARABHAI ODEDRA (L/H BABUBHAI ODEDRA),PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.915/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedara Vs. Income Tax Officer, (L/H Babubhai Oghadbhai Odedara) Ward-2(4), At Bavalvav, Porbandar, Porbandar Gujarat-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajpo3410B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/ 03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am

section 127(1). Hon. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the re-opening of assessment which was made only on the basis of information received from Bank and Ld AO has not provided his satisfaction for having "reasons to believe" for income escaping assessment. Merely non filing of return

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

127 crore interest income from 97 crore interest expenditure in short term loans. A profit margin of 23%. However, in the case of long-termEligible Business, the assessee has shown 90 crores interest income from 48 crores interest expenditure. A profit margin of THE ACIT CIR.1(1) RAJKOT 47%. How can the profit margin vary from 23% to 47% unless

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred