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 270(1

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

1) deals with a return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 148. That makes the provision clear that an assessment made under section 147 also will be a regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. Accordingly, we hold that any assessment made for the first time by resort to section 147 will also be a regular

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

1) deals with a return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 148. That makes the provision clear that an assessment made under section 147 also will be a regular assessment under section 143 or section 144. Accordingly, we hold that any assessment made for the first time by resort to section 147 will also be a regular

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

reassessment of total\nincome or loss of assessee.\"\n2.1. We have also gone through the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29.11.2021\nwhich is as follows:\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nNational Faceless Assessment Centro\nDelhi\nTo,\nNABIUL INDUSTRIAL METAL PRIVATE LIMITED\nVILL AND POST DHADIMBA, DIST PASCHIM\nMEDINIPUR\nMIDNAPORE 721301, West Bengal\nIndia

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

144 and\ndirecting the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment without adjudicating the\nadditional grounds of appeal and Further Written Submission filed on 18.11.2024\nduring the Appellate Proceeding before CIT(A)/NFAC, which challenged the validity\nof the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n6. The order of the learned CIT (A)/NFAC u/s.250

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) :

1) of the Act, dated 16.12.2021 along with questionnaire was issued. However, the assessee did not file reply before the assessing officer, therefore assessing officer made addition of Rs. 21,92,000/-, under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

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)

1 had considered the effect and interpretation of the Section 151 (A) of the Income Tax as extracted herein under: "3. It is apparent that the impugned notice dated 5 April, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the order of the same date under Section 148A(d) of the Act are issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

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

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/ 1035663980(1

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

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

1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision\nof this Act, the assessment, reassessment or re-computation under sub-section (3) of\nsection 143 or under section 144

KANTILAL RANCHHODBHAI NAKUM,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.551/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kantilal Ranchhodbhai Nakum Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Plot No.762, Gidc, Phase-2, बनाम/ Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Dared, Jamnagar-361 004 Vs. Chamber Of Commerce Hall, Jamnagar- Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361 001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aflpn 8072 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Manek, Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 12.05.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Reopening Of Assessment U/S 148 Of The Act.

reassessment order framed by the assessing officer should be quashed. 10. Therefore, we find that based on the above facts, the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra), wherein it was held as follows: “19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General

SANJAYKUMAR HARIBHAI PARSANA,RAJKOT vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order framed by the assessing officer should be quashed. 12. Therefore, we find that based on the above facts, the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra), wherein it was held as follows: “19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General

NILESHKUMAR M BHALODI,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order framed by the assessing officer should be quashed. 12. Therefore, we find that based on the above facts, the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra), wherein it was held as follows: “19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General

SMT RAMILABE RAMJI BHADRA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1 (2), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 17/Rjt/2018 अपील Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ramila R. Bhadra, C/O. Laxmi Enterprise, Vs The Income-Tax Officer, C-2-35/2, Gidc, Shankar Tekri, Ward 1(2), Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361004 Pan : Afwpb 3443 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

144 of the Act treating the liabilities being sundry creditors amounting to Rs.63,50,779/- as fictitious liabilities within the meaning of Section 41(1) of the Act and disallowed the same, which was in turn deleted by the First Appellate Authority in appeal upon considering the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer on the details provided

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

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment determining the total income at Rs. 14,42,470/- vide order dated 26-12-2018. 2.1. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) dated 18-12-2018 in spite of service of notice to the assessee, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued