RAMESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KHICHADIA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013

reassessment proceeding were initiated under section 147 of the Act after recording the reasons as detailed below: “The assessment is re-opened only on the information has been received from DDIT (inv.) Unit-2(1) Kolkata. The DDIT (Inv.) has reported that information from credible sources was received that during the period of 01.01.2012 to 28.02.2012 M/s DLS Export

ILA JIGNESHKUMAR VAKHARIA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 599/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Ila Jignesh Kumar Vakharia, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Bagasra Road, At Derdi Kumbhaji, 1(2)(1), Derdi – Gondal - 364465 New Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqfpv0899R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 / 01 /2026

reassess the income of the person in accordance with the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Section 153 starts with Non obstante clause that is Notwithstanding which overrides the other provisions mentioned after this word. The language used in these sections, i.e. 'notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153

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

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

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

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated\nunder section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned\nunder section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall-\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

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

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

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

153 Taxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no information is available on the basis of the seized record.  Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be estimated on the basis

AJAYKUMAR NATWARLAL SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order 29.12.2017.\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows:\n“1. The learned A.O. has grievously erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction\nu/s 147 of the Act.\n2. That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naction

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

153\nTaxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no\ninformation is available on the basis of the seized record.\n\n•\nHon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163\nTaxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be\nestimated

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

153\nTaxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no\ninformation is available on the basis of the seized record.\n\n• Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163\nTaxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be\nestimated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

153\nTaxman 13held that the income cannot be estimated for the period for which no\ninformation is available on the basis of the seized record.\n\n• Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. [2007] 163\nTaxman 654 (Delhi) upheld the finding of the tribunal that no income can be\nestimated

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay

MITHAPUR NUTAN BAL SHIKSHAN SANGH,MITHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD (1), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 rws 144 and also against the aforesaid penalty order u/s. 270A/271AAC(1) of the Act, before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has restored the quantum appeal of the assessee, for assessment year 2019– 20, to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. I have also gone through the petition for condonation of delay