MOHAN HARDASMAL TAHILYANI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

144", "Section 144B", "Section 148", "Section 149", "Section 151", "Section 69A", "Section 148A"], "issues": "Whether the reassessment notice issued under

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act and inapplicable to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Scheme is clearly applicable for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and accordingly, it is only the FAO which can issue the notice under Section

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

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

reassessment or re-computation under sub-section (3) of\nsection 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 rws 147 of the I.T. Act 1961 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 4.That, the Ld. AO has wrongly made addition of Rs.30,23,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. AO has wrongly applied the provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

reassessment order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act(DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22

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

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

reassessment proceedings under section 147/ 148 of the Act, as bad in Law. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of agriculture seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and a dealing in pesticides and fertilizer. The return of income for the year is filed on 28/10/2017, declaring total income at Rs. 48,772/-. The assessee- firm

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)

144 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 is bad-in-law. a. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. b. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (Jassessing officer) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (Fassessing officer) lacks of jurisdiction. c. The order u/s 148A(d) of the Act fails

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

reassessment proceedings under Section 147, leading to additions and penalty proceedings. The assessee's appeals to the CIT(A) resulted in partial relief. Subsequently, the matter reached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 was time-barred and invalid as it was issued after the prescribed

GIRISH LAHORI,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

144\nof the Act. The assessing officer noticed that assessing officer had traded with\nNational Stock Exchange in shares and Future &Option during the year\namounting to Rs.18,91,25, 743/-, since no details were furnished, by the\nassessee, therefore, assessing officer made estimated addition of 1% on the\nsale of such shares and Future &Options. The profit therefore worked

KUNDANBEN YOGESHKUMAR SHUKLA,GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 3, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

section 154\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act\").\n2.\nGrounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as followed:\n1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment order\npassed u/s 144

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)

reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A). 12. In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.528/RJT/2024 A.Y.2019-20, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 529-Rjt-24 A.Y. 2020-21, are dismissed. 13. The summarised and concise ground

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)

reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A). 12. In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.528/RJT/2024 A.Y.2019-20, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 529-Rjt-24 A.Y. 2020-21, are dismissed. 13. The summarised and concise ground

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)

reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A). 12. In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.528/RJT/2024 A.Y.2019-20, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 529-Rjt-24 A.Y. 2020-21, are dismissed. 13. The summarised and concise ground

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)

reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A). 12. In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.528/RJT/2024 A.Y.2019-20, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 529-Rjt-24 A.Y. 2020-21, are dismissed. 13. The summarised and concise ground

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)

reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A). 12. In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.528/RJT/2024 A.Y.2019-20, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 529-Rjt-24 A.Y. 2020-21, are dismissed. 13. The summarised and concise ground