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

reassessment notice and all consequent 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 date will not revive. The time limit for those years

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI MANEK,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

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

6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that assessee has raised the additional ground on the legal issue challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. The facts relating to reopening the assessment under section 147/148 were there before the assessing officer.We note that it is purely a legal issue

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

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,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 Nautiyal

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

M/S. SHREE SIDHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

reassessments were subsequently dropped by the A.O. following the above mentioned Gujarat High Court judgment Page 128 to 133 6. It is completely illogical to assume that every bank receipt should constitute income of the assessee. The reopening on such a fallacious assumption is not permissible in law. Delhi ITAT in case of Bir Bahadur Singh Siwali

A.C.I.T CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT vs. SANSKAR DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) of the Act to the third party, to make enquiry. The assessee submitted the documents and evidences before the Assessing Officer at the fag-end when the Assessing Officer did not have any option but to complete the assessment without having conducted any proper enquiry. The ld DR also submitted that on appeal, by the assessee, before Ld.CIT

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.

6 In this regard it is submitted that the expenses towards the construction of the residential house started way before the letter of permission was issued. It started right from the acquisition of the adjacent plot of land on 30-07-2010. Thereafter several activities and consequential expenses got started towards the construction of the residential house. The copies

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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.

6 In this regard it is submitted that the expenses towards the construction of the residential house started way before the letter of permission was issued. It started right from the acquisition of the adjacent plot of land on 30-07-2010. Thereafter several activities and consequential expenses got started towards the construction of the residential house. The copies

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESH NATWARLAL SHETH, , RAJKOT

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 38/Rjt/2018 With C.O No.16/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 D.C.I.T., Shri Nilesh Natwarlal Sheth, Central Circle-2, Vs. Prop. Of M/S.Kruna Finvest, Rajkot. 403-Star Chambers, Harihar Chowk, Rajkot.

133(6) dated 22/11/2016 to the broker of the appellant wherein broker has furnished details being transactions executed with the appellant along with evidence, bank statement and copy of return of income vide letter dated 30/11/2016. Even broker vide letter dated 13/12/2016 has stated that appellant has not requested for client code modification during the year under consideration and even

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudas Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat-361001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.74/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) Khushaboo Jaykumar Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Wadi Main Road, Kaushal Nagar, Gujarat - 361110 स्थायी लेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / Pan/Gir.: Aefpv6723A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 19/06/2025 : 05/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) – 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [(In Short "Ld. Pr.Cit”] U/S. 263 Of The Act, Both Orders Dated 24.01.2025. 2. Since, These Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee For Same

133(6) of the Act was issued to the parties with the prior approval from the authority and in reply the AO and relied "Copy of Income tax Return, copy of ledger account with your concern, copy of bank statement reflecting and highlighting the entry of the transaction with assessee's concern, Copy of GST Return." All the above submissions

KHUSHBOO JAYKUMAR VITHLANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act was issued to the parties with the prior approval from the authority and in reply the AO and relied "Copy of Income tax Return, copy of ledger account with your concern, copy of bank statement reflecting and highlighting the entry of the transaction with assessee's concern, Copy of GST Return." All the above submissions

LATE CHHOTALAL VALLABHADAS DOSHI L/H. HEIR SMT. PRABHAVATIBEN CHHOTALAL DOSHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.698/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Chhotalal Vallabhdas Doshi Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Jamnagar. (Legal Heir Smt. Prabhavatiben Chhotalal Doshi). 505 Ajitnath Apartment, Near Indraprasth Tower, Jamnagar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdpd9371Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing :23/12/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement :22/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 24/07/204, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 22/03/2016 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal By Contending That No Response Has Been Received From Assessee Although The Response Has Been Submitted Through Samadhan.Faceless.Appeal@Incometax.Gov.In As There Was No Income Tax Registration Due To Death Of The Assessee I.E. Chhotalal Doshi On Ita-698/Rjt/2024 (Ay-2008-09) Late Chhotalal Doshi Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Jamnagar.

section 151 of the IT Act in mechanical manner and therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is invalid and reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment. 6. Learned A.O. erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of total of credits appearing in bank accounts amounting to Rs. 6

AJAYKUMAR NATWARLAL SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. f. As the present case fall in the time limit of 4 years to 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval of the Pr.CIT is sought". 5. The assessing officer, therefore, observed that Client Code Modification means modification / change of the client codes after execution of trades

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

6. Considering the above facts, the Ld. PCIT issued show -cause notice to the assessee, u/s 263 of the Act, dated 11.12.2024, which is reproduced by ld.PCIT in his revision order under section 263 of the Act, vide page Nos.2 to 5. ITA No.26-27/Rjt/2025 A.Y.21-22 Jabir A Vahevaria& Altaf A Vehvaria 4 7. In response to above show cause notice

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

6. Considering the above facts, the Ld. PCIT issued show -cause notice to the assessee, u/s 263 of the Act, dated 11.12.2024, which is reproduced by ld.PCIT in his revision order under section 263 of the Act, vide page Nos.2 to 5. ITA No.26-27/Rjt/2025 A.Y.21-22 Jabir A Vahevaria& Altaf A Vehvaria 4 7. In response to above show cause notice

LAXMANBHAI NATHUBHAI ZORA,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3),RAJKOT, PORBANDAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2012-13) Laxmanbhainathubhai Zora Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3) Rameshwari Krupa, Nr.Railway Pata Rajkot, Porbandar. Thakkar Plot, Porbandar. Pan : Aakpz 1087 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.The grounds raised by the assessee, in the appeal, are as follows: (1) The Learned assessing officer has erred in law as well as on facts ininitiating reassessment procedure and Passing of assessment order without communication of Reason for reopening. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order