SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

160 taxmann.com 474 (Bombay)  Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section

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

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 case

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand) 3. That in addition to the deeming provisions, the Act requires taxation of profits from activities undertaken by the assessee, i.e. commission income. 4. That the activities of the assessee have been incorrectly considered as ‘business’ by Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. ITAT Rajkot. The activities undertaken by the assessee are non-commercium activities

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

160/-\n2013-14 (2) October-2013 to March-20214\n7,27,66,568/-\n2014-15 (1) April 2014 to August-2014\n6,08,89,620/-\n2013-14 (2) Septemer-2014 to December-2015\n5,11,54,984/-\nTotal\n22,58,68,936/-\n19.4 During search proceedings, physical stock of finished goods was also verified\nand it was found that there

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

160/- 2013-14 (2) October-2013 to March-20214 7,27,66,568/- 2014-15 (1) April 2014 to August-2014 6,08,89,620/- 2013-14 (2) Septemer-2014 to December-2015 5,11,54,984/- Total 22,58,68,936/- 19.4 During search proceedings, physical stock of finished goods was also verified and it was found that there

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

160/- 2013-14 (2) October-2013 to March-20214 7,27,66,568/- 2014-15 (1) April 2014 to August-2014 6,08,89,620/- 2013-14 (2) Septemer-2014 to December-2015 5,11,54,984/- Total 22,58,68,936/- 19.4 During search proceedings, physical stock of finished goods was also verified and it was found that there

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand)\n3. That in addition to the deeming provisions, the Act requires taxation of profits from activities\nundertaken by the assessee, i.e. commission income.\n4. That the activities of the assessee have been incorrectly considered as 'business' by Ld. CIT(A) as\nwell as Ld. ITAT Rajkot. The activities undertaken by the assessee are non-commercium\nactivities

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand)\n3. That in addition to the deeming provisions, the Act requires taxation of profits from activities\nundertaken by the assessee, i.e. commission income.\n4. That the activities of the assessee have been incorrectly considered as 'business' by Ld. CIT(A) as\nwell as Ld. ITAT Rajkot. The activities undertaken by the assessee are non-commercium\nactivities

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand)\n3. That in addition to the deeming provisions, the Act requires taxation of profits from activities\nundertaken by the assessee, i.e. commission income.\n4. That the activities of the assessee have been incorrectly considered as 'business' by Ld. CIT(A) as\nwell as Ld. ITAT Rajkot. The activities undertaken by the assessee are non-commercium\nactivities

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand)\n3. That in addition to the deeming provisions, the Act requires taxation of profits from activities undertaken by the assessee, i.e. commission income.\n4. That the activities of the assessee have been incorrectly considered as 'business' by Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. ITAT Rajkot. The activities undertaken by the assessee are non-commercium activities