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 the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Takdir Trader v. PCIT 8. The assessee replied that the observation made by the Ld.PCIT is not correct at all, because of the fact that the Faceless Unit in the course of reassessment proceeding issued Notice u/s

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

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 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

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

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 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

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

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 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

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

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, I intend to revise the order of the assessing officer passed u/s 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

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)

147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, in law, is patently illegal as the 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

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

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

M/S PANCHNATH ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeals are allowed

reassessment proceedings nor in reply to the show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act has the assessee been able to justify the prudency behind charging less than commission than it itself had to pay to the bank. The assessee ought to have Explained the prudency behind such activity but has failed to do so. 9. It would also

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)

section 263 of the Act, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 24.03.2022 is erroneous in for as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that in the re- assessment proceedings, no addition

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 KHODIDAS PREMJIBHAI BHAGIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Roy

reassessment order needs to be set aside and should be examined in pursuance to the direction of ld CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. 7. The ld. AR in his rejoinder submitted that the explanation to section 263 of the Act is not applicable. The ld. CIT(A) u/s 263 of the Act has not pointed out any defect

ABDULKADAR HAJIAHMED VADIWALA,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 16/03/2023, in the case of the above mentioned assessee for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, learned PCIT set aside the assessment order passed under section 147 read

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

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)

263 the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act dated 30.03.2022 is erroneous in for as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147, read with section 144B of the Income tax Act, dated 30.03.2022, was set aside by ld PCIT

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

section 115JB of IT Act, 1961. 2. Thereafter, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Rajkot found some discrepancies in passed assessment and on the basis of their judgement, order for 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: (a) Share Capital introduced during the year

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)

reassessment under section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14, on the following grounds: “1. Ld. Principal CIT erred in law as well as on fact in assuming jurisdiction under 263 of the Act. 1 Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah 2. Ld. Principal CIT erred in law as well as on fact in holding that Assessment order passed u/s