THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

reassessment order passed under section 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since I.T.A Nos. 206

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

206\nOpening cash on\nhand\n01.08.2020\nTotal\n53,75,45,607 26,67,16,375 27,08,29,232\nHence, for the assessment year 2013–14, the assessing officer made addition in\nthe hands of the assessee, 20% of the total unaccounted receipt Rs.3,22,89,423/-\nShri Shamjibhai Shadabhai Kangad & Ors.\nIT(SS)A Nso.11 to 23/RJT/2022

SOBER CERAMICS,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-4, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 131 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\"\n4. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned Counsel for\nthe assessee invited our attention to the judgement of Hon'ble\njurisdictional, High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT v. Ganga\nGlaze Tiles P. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 206 & 207 of 2019 [(2020) 117\ntaxmann.com

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

reassessment order itself is not valid, therefore, subsequent order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT by exercising the revisionary jurisdiction is also bad in law. 6.The assessee also submitted before ld. PCIT that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has conducted sufficient inquiry in respect of the issue raised by the ld. Pr. CIT. The assessee also submitted before the ld.Pr.CIT