MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment' cannot he reduced beyond the income originally assessed.' 14.9 In the light of above decision and after analyzing all the facts as discussed above, we find that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditures in respect of which the escaped income has sought to be assessed. The loss from the share trading activity has direct

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

234A and 234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal” Page 2 of 25 ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra 4. Brief facts of the case

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

234A and 234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal” Page 2 of 25 ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra 4. Brief facts of 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)

234A, 234B, 234C,234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad- in- law. 9. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter OR DLEETE any of the above grounds of appeals.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted

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) :

234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6.That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty u/s 271AAC and 272(A)(1)(d) of the Act,1961. 7.The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly

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)

234A and 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, is a partnership- firm and has not filed return of income for assessment year (AY) 2014-15. In this case notice u/s 148 of the Page 2 of 13 I.T.A No. 542/Rjt/2025

DHANJI MURJI HIRANI,KUTCH vs. ITO.(INT.TXN)GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.131/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dhanji Murji Hirani, Baladia Ito (Int.Txn), बनाम Bhuj, Kutch, Gandhidham Gujarat 370427 Vs. Pan : Afaph0463B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr

section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. That, the Ld. assessing officer has wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT. Act, 1961 7. That the Ld. assessing officer has wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234F of the I. T. Act. 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. 10. It is prayed that the addition made

JITENDRABHAI BHAGVANBHAI DALVADI,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which reads as follows: Ground No.6: That, the notice

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

234A and 234B\nof the I.T. Act, 1961.\n5.That, the findings of the Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and\nare bad- in-law.\nThat, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds\nof appeals.\"\n3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 6. The assessee carves to add, amend, alter and delete

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.

Section 147 of the Act which otherwise is based on illegal and bad-in-law reassessment notice. 4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming reassessment proceedings based on notice u/s 148 issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) which is in contravention of mandatory provisions of faceless assessment scheme

BHARTIBEN PINAKIN BAJAJ,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, RAJKOT

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are rejected and the appeals are dismissed

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2017 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-Rajkot on 09.01.2018. The ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on 19.04.2018, 14.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 22.06.2018, 10.07.2018, 10.08.2018 and 05.10.2018. In all the seven occasions none

BHARTIBEN PINAKIN BAJAJ,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, RAJKOT

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are rejected and the appeals are dismissed

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2017 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-Rajkot on 09.01.2018. The ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on 19.04.2018, 14.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 22.06.2018, 10.07.2018, 10.08.2018 and 05.10.2018. In all the seven occasions none

NILESH ASHANAND THACKER,BHUJ vs. ITO WARD 4, GANDHIDHAM (BHUJ)

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That the findings of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in- law. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee, for Assessment Year

AMARDEEP EXPORTS,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(3), JNR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

234A, 234B, 234C of the Act” 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a firm. The assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. However, the assessee has made following transaction, during the year; 1. Remittance to non resident to a foreign company (Form 15CA) Rs.50,61,600/- 2. TDS return – other interest

DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dream Infrastructure, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mavdi Survey No. 358, B/H. Mavdi Ward-1(1)(1), Village, Kankot Road, Mavdi, Rajkot Rajkot-360004(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd2565L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025

234A, B C of the I T Act is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 5. Your applicant reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3.The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: On the basis of information available on records