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

2 of sec. 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

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

2 of sec. 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

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

2 of sec. 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

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

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

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

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)

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 05.01.2024 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y.’) 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2) of the Act. The assessee again informed to the income tax officer\nabout death of assessee. However, assessing officer framed the assessment\norder on the dead person which is bad in law. The learned PCIT also framed\nthe revision order under section 263 of the Act on the dead person. That is,\nrevision order under section 263

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)

2 to section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the Assessee replied to notice of the Ld PCIT and submitted that during the course of assessment the Ld AO has called for details for explanation with regards to the transaction made

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)

2 to section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the Assessee replied to notice of the Ld PCIT and submitted that during the course of assessment the Ld AO has called for details for explanation with regards to the transaction made

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)

2(a) to 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

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 16/03/2023, accepting the returned income of the assessee. 4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( in short “Ld.PCIT”), has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961. On perusal of the assessment records, it was observed

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

reassessment or re-computation under sub-section (3) of\nsection 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with\nrespect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner\nas per the following procedure, namely:\n(xvi) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment

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)

2(a) to section 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

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

2) The glaring examples of huge investment when compared to meager income returned as mentioned in para-3 of the SCN and as evident from the fact that the investment/loan given to the assessee- company is dis- proportionally high to the income returned, called for verification/ enquiry by the AO. The averment by the assessee that most of the shareholders

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

2. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and director in the companies. In the present case the reassessment proceeding were

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

2,23,486/- u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.09.2014. The case of the appellant was re-opened u/s 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

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide order dated 14.03.2023. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “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