VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and I.T.A Nos. 281

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

281 (Cal) (x) Jubilant Energy (P) Lt. vs. DCIT (3927/Del/2016 (Delhi – Trib.) (xi) Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alluddin & Co. vs. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 490 (AP) (xii) CIT vs. Veekaylal Investment Co.(P.) Ltd. (249 ITR 597 (Bom) (xiii) ACIT vs. Reliance Welfare Association (ITA No.5976/Mum/2012) (Trib- Mumbai) (xiv) Zyma Laboratories Ltd. vs. ACIT [2006] 7 SOT 164 (Mumbai Trib

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of units made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of units made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of units made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of units made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of units made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

reassessment proceedings may be quashed. 12. On merit, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that sale of units made to the members of Sonwani Family is at the value, which is far higher (almost 1.50 to 2 times) than the valuation prescribed by State Government for levy of stamp duty, that is, Jantri Value / Circle Rate. In the seven

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

reassessment order, notice issued consequently itself: 1. 277 ITR 337(Del.) Vikas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 2. 278 ITR 32(Del.) Auto Lampes Ltd. 3. 41 Taxman 496(Kar.) M. W. Pvt. Ltd. 8. It is therefore submitted that penalty levied may kindly cancelled. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. Asstt