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

263 of the Income-tax Act. 1961, such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.In response to the above show- cause notice of the ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee submitted its reply before the ld.Pr.CIT, which is reproduced in his revision order vide page No.5 and 6. Before

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

sections": [ "69A", "115BBE", "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "69B", "69C", "43B", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment order passed by the PCIT

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income

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)

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 05.01.2024 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y.’) 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

TAKDIR TRADERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

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

263 of the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Takdir Trader v. PCIT 8. The assessee replied that the observation made by the Ld.PCIT is not correct at all, because of the fact that the Faceless Unit in the course of reassessment proceeding issued Notice u/s 142(1

TAKDIR TRADERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

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

263 of the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Takdir Trader v. PCIT 8. The assessee replied that the observation made by the Ld.PCIT is not correct at all, because of the fact that the Faceless Unit in the course of reassessment proceeding issued Notice u/s 142(1

TAKDIR TRADERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed”

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

263 of the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Takdir Trader v. PCIT 8. The assessee replied that the observation made by the Ld.PCIT is not correct at all, because of the fact that the Faceless Unit in the course of reassessment proceeding issued Notice u/s 142(1

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

1). Date of assessment order u/s 143(3)\n(2). Date of death of Assessee\n(3). Return for A.Y. 2018-19 filed by L.R.\n(4). Date of notice u/s 263 of the Act\n(5). Date of intimation of death to PCIT\n(6). Date of passing the order by ld. PCIT\nunder section 263

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

1) dated 20.12.2022 wherein assessing officer has specifically asked details and questions in respect of the issue raised by the learned PCIT in his order under section 263 of the Act. In response to above notice, vide reply dated 21.12.2022, the assessee submitted relevant details and documents. Hence, it can be observed from above that during the course of assessment

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

1) dated 20.12.2022 wherein assessing officer has specifically asked details and questions in respect of the issue raised by the learned PCIT in his order under section 263 of the Act. In response to above notice, vide reply dated 21.12.2022, the assessee submitted relevant details and documents. Hence, it can be observed from above that during the course of assessment

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 263 of I.T. Act, that the order passed by the assessing\nofficer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT\nobserved that above facts indicate that assessing officer has not conducted any\ninquiries/ verification in respect of cash and cheque deposits in his bank\naccounts claimed to be belonging to the third parties

ABDULKADAR HAJIAHMED VADIWALA,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

1 April 2021, the prior approval should be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The provisions of section 151 of the Act under the new regime read as under: Sanction for issue of notice. 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating