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

263 of 1. T. Act as the twin conditions namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous: and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income

PARESHKUMAR NENSHIBHAI THAKKAR,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of IT. Act as the twin conditions namely,(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous: and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 hs set aside

PARESHKUMAR NENSHIBHAI THAKKAR,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT- RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of IT. Act as the twin conditions namely,(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous: and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 hs set aside

NILESH BIPINCHANDRA MEHTA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

reassessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the\nAct, although not valid, as per the provisions of section 148 of the Act,\nhowever, for that separate remedy is available to the assessee. That is, the\nassessee can file the appeal against the impugned order before appropriate\nauthority. However, the jurisdiction exercised by Ld.PCIT u/s 263 does

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

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

147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. You may submit your written submissions to this office either through e-proceedings module of your e- filing account

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

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

147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. You may submit your written submissions to this office either through e-proceedings module of your e- filing account

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

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

147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. You may submit your written submissions to this office either through e-proceedings module of your e- filing account

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

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

147 of the I.T. Act dated 07/05/21 for the AY 2012-13. 6. Under the circumstances, you are requested to show cause as to why the order dated 07/05/21 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. You may submit your written submissions to this office either through e-proceedings module of your e- filing account

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)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, in law, is patently illegal as the Reassessment Order subjected to revision

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

revision u/s 263 was passed on 13.09.2016 and AO was directed to re-assess the income of the assessee depicting the following issues:\n(a) Share Capital introduced during the year under consideration;\n(b) Unsecured Loans (squared up or not) raised during the year;\n(c) Sundry Creditors, and\n(d) Sustainability of claim u/s 32AC

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order\ndated 26.12.2017. The date of intimation of death was communicated to ld. PCIT,\non 04.03.2019. However, the ld PCIT framed the revision order under section 263\nof the Act, on dead person, on 30.03.2021. That is, revision order under section 263\nof the Act was framed on, non-existent assessee, hence

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

147 r.w.s. 144B of the MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Pr.CIT 4 Income tax Act, 1961 on 28.03.2022, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4.Considering above such facts, notice u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued by ld.PCIT, on 29.02.2023 and duly served upon the assessee.The ld. PCIT stated in the notice that assessee

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

263 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year(A.Y.) 2016-17 of the\nassessing officer of making addition of Rs. 7,78,97,000/- on account of share\ncapital and Rs. 57,61,000/- on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act, and\nthis is a second inning before us. Learned

GLOBAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Global Extrusions Private Limited. Vs. Pcit Jamnagar, Ca Govind Sonecha Taranjali Building, “S&A House”, Near Golden City, Jamnagar 361008 80Ft Road, Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section Police Headquarters, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm4319E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. (Cit)Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025

147 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing that M/s Moral Alloy (P) Ltd is an accommodation entry provider and the assessee company is a beneficiary of such accommodation entity through M/s Ankit Metals in the form of non-genuine purchase and/or credits to the tune of Rs.1,07,50,000/- during

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)

u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act dated 31/03/2022, is erroneous and 3 Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act to that extent and therefore, Ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh in respect of the above issue after giving reasonable opportunity

CHUNILAL MAHADEVBHAI SANJA,MORBI 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. 279/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Chunilal Mahadevbhai Sanja, Vs. The Pcit-1 C/O M/S. Nobel Cera Coat, Rajkot At-Jambudia, Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp7711N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

revision order on page No.2. 5. In response to the above notice of learned PCIT, the assessee submitted its reply, stating that he denied that he had not taken any loan from any Vasant kumar Thakar. In support of this denial, the assessee had provided a copy of bank statements and bank books wherein neither the name of any Vasant

LUNAR CERAMICS,WANKANER vs. PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

revised after making necessary inquiry. In this\nconnection the assessee requested to furnish assessee reply/ submission /\nexplanation or objection.\n5. The assessee filed reply that reference to above, the Ld.PCIT have issued notice\nu/s.263 on the contention that the Ld.AO failed to make inquiry during the course\nof assessment. The Ld.PCIT contention in notice is as under

BABUBHAI JOITARAM PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CENT-1 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15&23/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Babubhai Joitram Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ 9 Suvas Colony St Xaviers High Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, School Road. Gujarat-380 014 Central Circle –1, Rajkot, Income Tax Officer, Amruta Estate Building, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdpp5355 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pramod Popat, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025

reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative and may be continued against the legal representative from the stage