M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, ,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

153(3) read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Thus, the learned AR pointed out that once the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed, then the penalty arising out of such assessment order is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty order framed under section

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

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

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

ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if- I.T.A No. 399/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 7 Kandla Energy & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT (a) the assessee intimates to the Assessing Officer the acceptance of the variation ; or (b) no objections are received within the period specified in subsection

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)

ii) On 22nd March, 2006 an order under Section 142(2A) was passed. (iii) On 31st March, 2006, the assessment proceedings were stayed by an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 4954/2006. I.T.A Nos. 25 & 25./Rjt/2021 and C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/Rjt/2021 A.Ys. 2006-07 & 07-08 Page No 24 ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumat G. Patel (iv) On 18th December

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)

ii) On 22nd March, 2006 an order under Section 142(2A) was passed. (iii) On 31st March, 2006, the assessment proceedings were stayed by an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 4954/2006. I.T.A Nos. 25 & 25./Rjt/2021 and C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/Rjt/2021 A.Ys. 2006-07 & 07-08 Page No 24 ACIT vs. Shri Rajeshkumat G. Patel (iv) On 18th December

ILA JIGNESHKUMAR VAKHARIA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 599/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Ila Jignesh Kumar Vakharia, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Bagasra Road, At Derdi Kumbhaji, 1(2)(1), Derdi – Gondal - 364465 New Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqfpv0899R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

reassess the income of the person in accordance with the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Section 153 starts with Non obstante clause that is Notwithstanding which overrides the other provisions mentioned after this word. The language used in these sections, i.e. 'notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153

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

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,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

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated\nunder section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned\nunder section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall-\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be\nspecified

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ii) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in estimating profit @ 22% on so called on money receipt on sale of flats at project Dream City. The addition made and retained is bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted. (This is assessee's ground No. 3

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ii) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in estimating profit @ 22% on so called\non money receipt on sale of flats at project Dream City. The addition made and retained\nis bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted.\n(This is assessee's ground No. 3

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ii) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in estimating profit @ 22% on so called\non money receipt on sale of flats at project Dream City. The addition made and retained\nis bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted.\n(This is assessee's ground No. 3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

ii) The ld. CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in estimating profit @ 22% on so called\non money receipt on sale of flats at project Dream City. The addition made and retained\nis bad in law as also on facts therefore the same may kindly be deleted.\n(This is assessee's ground No. 3

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order 29.12.2017.\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows:\n“1. The learned A.O. has grievously erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction\nu/s 147 of the Act.\n2. That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naction

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