THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

147, is of immense importance as in this case initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 80IA was wrongly allowed to the assessee as the assessee was not eligible for deduction in that particular assessment year, the argument of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

147, is of immense importance as in this case initial assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act and deduction under section 80IA was wrongly allowed to the assessee as the assessee was not eligible for deduction in that particular assessment year, the argument of the assessee that there was no failure on the part of the assessee

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

147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2022 is set aside for fresh assessment only the extent of the issues discussed supra and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s National Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition under

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

147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2022 is set aside for fresh assessment only the extent of the issues discussed supra and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s National Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition under

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

147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2022 is set aside for fresh assessment only the extent of the issues discussed supra and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s National Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition under

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

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

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

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

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

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

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

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

reassessment order. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked for various details/documents in respect of the transaction. All details/documents, such as, Contract Note for Purchase of shares, Broker Ledger (with broker details) from whom shares were purchased and Contract Note for Sale of shares etc. were filed before the assessing officer. 8. However, ld.PCIT rejected the above contention

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

deducting the TDS u/s 194A of the Act; d) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of enquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131 to the lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions; e) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary material/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

deducting the TDS\nu/s 194A of the Act;\nd) The Ld. assessing officer did not conduct any sort of\nenquiry/investigation and had not issued any notices u/s.133(6)/131_to\nthe lenders and their bankers to verify the transactions;\ne) The Ld. assessing officer had not provided the copies of contrary\nmaterial/evidence and statements of 3rd parties for rebuttal and also

SHRI NAGICHANA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,AT. NAGICHANA, TAL. MANGROL, DIST. JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under consideration 7. Therefore, based on the above observations which originate from the material/information available on record with the assessing officer, income to the tune of Rs.2,87,70,000/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. In view of the above

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(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

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(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

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(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

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(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

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(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

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

147 of the Act is incurably and defective. In para-3 of SCN, it is\nstated that the provision of Section 149(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