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 142(1

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

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)

1. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the power exercised by learned PCIT u/s 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

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

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

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

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

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)

1, Rajkot failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant raised before him that the underlying order u/s 147 itself was bad in law and therefore it was not amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal

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)

1, Rajkot failed to appreciate the contention of the appellant raised before him that the underlying order u/s 147 itself was bad in law and therefore it was not amenable to revision u/s 263 of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal

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

Appeals are allowed

1,000/- on cheques/DD discounting and 0.30 paise to 1.00 per Rs.1000 on cheques/DD issuing". Neither in the submissions made during the 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

M/S. UNITED ENGINEERS, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

147 read with section 143(3) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. 14. Coming to the 2nd fold of contention of the learned AR that the assessment framed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and therefore no penalty proceedings can be initiated under section 271(1

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

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)

1,30,440/-. 4. Later on, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( in brief, ld.PCIT), has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961. On verification of case records, it was noticed by the learned PCIT that on several occasion, the assessee has paid huge cash in excess of Rs. 10,000/- in a single

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

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

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 under consideration; (b) Unsecured Loans (squared up or not) raised during the year; (c) Sundry Creditors, and (d) Sustainability of claim u/s 32AC 3. Accordingly, a notices u/s 142(1

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

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

AMRAPAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,AMRAPAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 324/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Amrapar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of C/O., Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Floor, Income Tax – 1, Dr. Radha Krishna Road, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Rajkumar Collage, Rajkot - 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa0819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2026 : 17/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

1. The order u/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore the provisions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the appellant