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

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

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)

Reassessment Order subjected to revision is not erroneous or nor it is prejudicial to interest of the Revenue and hence, impugned Order dt. 05/01/2024 needs to be quashed, ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT 3. The learned PCIT has erred in law and in fact in disregarding the specific inquiry on the shares GLOBAL SECUR undertaken

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

KANAIYA FOOD PRODUCTS,JAMKANDORANA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 336/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kanaiya Food Products, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of A A, Dhoraji Jamkandorana Income Tax-1, Rajkot 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Road, Near Gujarat Pani Purvatha Tank, Course Ring Road, Rajkot Jamkandodrana-360405 Rajkot-361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfk9437F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 40A where any payment in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees is made otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn

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)

disallowances, thus all these three appeals are taken up for common disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, engaged in Shroff business of discounting/issuing of negotiable instruments like drafts, cheques etc. under the name and style of M/s. Sanjay Enterprise. The assessee was earning commission of Rs. 50 per lakh for such

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)

disallowances, thus all these three appeals are taken up for common disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, engaged in Shroff business of discounting/issuing of negotiable instruments like drafts, cheques etc. under the name and style of M/s. Sanjay Enterprise. The assessee was earning commission of Rs. 50 per lakh for such

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)

disallowances, thus all these three appeals are taken up for common disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, engaged in Shroff business of discounting/issuing of negotiable instruments like drafts, cheques etc. under the name and style of M/s. Sanjay Enterprise. The assessee was earning commission of Rs. 50 per lakh for such

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

disallowed u/s 68 by Ld. AO in the assessment order.” 4.1. Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee order dated 30.08.2023, according to Ld. CIT (A), the appellant failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. Hence, the additions made in respect of unsecured loan/gifts

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant, Judic Member आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.257 & 223/Rjt/2022 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S Premji Valji & Sons D.C.I.T, (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-2(1), “Kuvarjibhai Tower” Rakot. Palace Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaccp2555N

reassessment. A perusal of the reasons recorded indicates that the AO has duly and properly applied his mind to the information so received by him. To my mind therefore, the reopening made by the AO cannot be faulted. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As regards the contention of the assessee that he is covered by the 1st proviso to 4.9 sec 147

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

disallowed the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, to the\ntune of Rs.3,01,93,275/-. However, later on, the assessee's case, was selected\nfor scrutiny under section 143 (3) of the Act and the said deduction u/s.80JJAA\nof the Act, was allowed by the assessing officer, vide order dated 19.09.2022,\npassed by the assessing officer under section

HARIDAS MULJI RUGHANI,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 2(3), PORBANDAR

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

reassessment order u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law.\n3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts for making an\naddition of cash deposits pertaining to Specified bank notes of Rs.9,80,000/- treating\nthem as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) has erred

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI MANEK,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ITO WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, additional legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above.” 10. From the above reasons recorded by the assessing officer, under section 147 of the Act, it is vivid that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer, to examine and to reassess ‘the cash deposit transactions in relation to non-filing of return of income’ however, the assessing officer