M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

reassessed or recomputed as loss than\nthe amount of tax will be calculated on the under reported\nincome as it was the total income.\nThis finding is w.r.t. disallowance of Rs.70,71,531/- of\npreliminary and pre operating expenses charge to revenue\nbefore date of assets put to use and dropping out penalty\nproceedings initiated under section 270(1

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

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

36,85,000 (Thirty Six Lakh Eighty Five Thousand) 6% Non-Cumulative, Non-\nConvertible, Redeemable fully paid up preference shares of Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred)\neach held by Seabird Marine Services Privat Limited and having an aggregate paid up\nvalue of Rs.36,85,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Crores Eight Five Lakhs); (“Proposed\nCapital Reduction”); and (b) NIL consideration being payable

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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)

viii) which states that if the period available to the AO is less than 60 days for the purpose of limitation then the period available would get extended to 60 days or deemed to be extended accordingly. In this case, the time available with the AO was 38 days and hence taking the benefit of 60 days period

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)

viii) which states that if the period available to the AO is less than 60 days for the purpose of limitation then the period available would get extended to 60 days or deemed to be extended accordingly. In this case, the time available with the AO was 38 days and hence taking the benefit of 60 days period

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking\napproval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no\nmention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and\nhence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of\ntime prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

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

36). Therefore, learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that\nassessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed\nenquiry. Therefore, learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessing\nofficer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence,\nPage 20\n21\nITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024\nITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024\norder passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous

ATUL VRAJLAL KARIA,RAJKOT vs. AC / DC (INT.TXN), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.133/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vrajlal Karia Ac/Dc (Int. Txn), बनाम C/O. D.S. Karia & Co. Ca, 203, Rajkot Cosmo Complex, Mahila College Vs. Chowk, Kalawad Road, Rajkot Pan : Adwpk6568J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

viii) The provisions of section 147 has been wrongly applied as against the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. We note that most of the above additional legal grounds were already raised in Form no. 36 along with appeal memo. We note that the remaining legal grounds, stated above, goes to the root of the matter

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

viii) On the basis of facts and circumstances, AO has correctly adopted\nthe figures of G.P of Rs.2,40,30,182/- which is as per show cause notice.\nHowever, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary\nevidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment\norder.\n(ix) Applicability of section 69 is correctly applied by AO.The

MAYURBHAI JAYSUKHLAL SHAH,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 319/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 601, Cross Way, P.N. Marg, Income Tax, Jamnagar Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax.Pcit, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afgps1754J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law. It is borrowed satisfaction and the reasons of reopening as furnished by the assessing officer, contain lot of mistakes. The reasons recorded were not spell out the belief of the assessing officer that the Income of the assessee escaped assessment. For that Ld. Counsel relied on the various judgements