JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

reassessment notice 2) under section 148 has undergone a change by replacing the old procedure under sections 147 to 151 by new procedure under section 147 to 151 including the insertion provision of section 148A providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of GKN Driveshafts India

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

reassessment notice 2) under section 148 has undergone a change by replacing the old procedure under sections 147 to 151 by new procedure under section 147 to 151 including the insertion provision of section 148A providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of GKN Driveshafts India

M/S. SHREE SIDHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 A.C.I.T, M/S Shree Sidhnath Enterprise, Central Circle-1, Vs. 8, Chokhawala Chambers, Rajkot. Bardan Gali, Danapith, Rajkot.

Section 147 is not fulfilled and hence, the reopening is bad in law on the ground of absence of reason to believe. Apex Court judgment in case of Chhugamal Raj pal vs. S. P. Chaliha & Ors (79 ITR 603) page 178 to 183 Gujarat High Court in case of Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel vs. ITO (56 212)-Page

SHRI VIJAY JAMNADAS VINCHHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A No. 309/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shri Vijaybhai Jamnadas Vinchhi. vs. ITO 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 58 days in filing

YESHA DHIRAJLAL THAKRAR,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) From Penalty Order Dated 29.01.2022 (Din: Itba/Pnl/F/271(1)(B)/2021-22/1039193062(1)) Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer,Nfac, Delhi(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(B) Of The 1961 Act Levying Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Against The Assesse For Non Compliance Of Three Notices Dated 27.07.2021, 06.08.2021 & 16.08.2021 Issued During Reassessment Proceedings , All Three Aforesaid Notices U/S 142(1) Of The 1961 Act. The Proceedings Were Conducted Before Division Bench Through E-Court Through Virtual Hearing Mode.

reassessment order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act(DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/ 1035663980(1), wherein addition of Rs. 1,90

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)

reassessment notice under section 148 has undergone a change by replacing the old procedure under sections 147 to 151 by new procedure under section 147 to 151 including the insertion provision of section 148A providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of GKN Driveshafts India

M/S OM KIRTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

reassessment order, as the case maybe, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 5. A perusal of the above provisions would show that the legislature has used the word shall in section 153-D, which means that the provisions of section 153D are mandatory

SMT. HARSHIDABEN M. POBARU,,JAMNAGAR. vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , JAMNAGAR.

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.371/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Smt. Harshidaben M. Pobaru, Circle-1, Vs. “Gokul’’, Park Colony, Jamnagar. Jamnagar-361008. Pan: Acmpp9140J

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are not justified in the case of Deloitte Haskins & Sells VS DCIT reported in 90

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 & 207/Rjt/2022 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. M/s. Dhruv Craft Mill Pvt. Ltd. identical issue of bogus purchase is involved in both cases

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 & 207/Rjt/2022 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. M/s. Dhruv Craft Mill Pvt. Ltd. identical issue of bogus purchase is involved in both cases

M/S PANCHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeals are allowed

90,297/-. He thus issued Section 148 notice dated 15.03.2013. The assessee filed its letter dated 19.03.2013 seeking to treat its original return declaring loss of Rs.68,250/- as the one in furtherance to the above section 148 notice. The Assessing Officer thereafter framed the re-assessment in question on 26.02.2014 accepting the said loss. 4. Case files suggest that

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment was held to be invalid where reasons recorded stated that certain claim/transaction required verification. These decisions are also applicable to the case of the appellant in view of similarity of reasons recorded. > Gujarat High Court in case of Shankarlal Nagji & CO. - 322 ITR 90 > Bombay High Court in case of Nivi Trading Ltd. - 375 ITR 308 > Ahmedabad ITAT

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment was held to be invalid where reasons recorded stated that certain claim/transaction required verification. These decisions are also applicable to the case of the appellant in view of similarity of reasons recorded. > Gujarat High Court in case of Shankarlal Nagji & CO. - 322 ITR 90 > Bombay High Court in case of Nivi Trading Ltd. - 375 ITR 308 > Ahmedabad ITAT

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment was held to be invalid where reasons recorded stated that certain claim/transaction required verification. These decisions are also applicable to the case of the appellant in view of similarity of reasons recorded. > Gujarat High Court in case of Shankarlal Nagji & CO. - 322 ITR 90 > Bombay High Court in case of Nivi Trading Ltd. - 375 ITR 308 > Ahmedabad ITAT

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 148 of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A).” 10. Respectfully following the above findings in assessee’s own case, we dismiss the assessee’s appeals. 11. In the result, following grounds of appeal of assessee

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 148 of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A).” 10. Respectfully following the above findings in assessee’s own case, we dismiss the assessee’s appeals. 11. In the result, following grounds of appeal of assessee

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 148 of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A).” 10. Respectfully following the above findings in assessee’s own case, we dismiss the assessee’s appeals. 11. In the result, following grounds of appeal of assessee

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 148 of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A).” 10. Respectfully following the above findings in assessee’s own case, we dismiss the assessee’s appeals. 11. In the result, following grounds of appeal of assessee

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 148 of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A).” 10. Respectfully following the above findings in assessee’s own case, we dismiss the assessee’s appeals. 11. In the result, following grounds of appeal of assessee