THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESH NATWARLAL SHETH, , RAJKOT

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 38/Rjt/2018 With C.O No.16/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 D.C.I.T., Shri Nilesh Natwarlal Sheth, Central Circle-2, Vs. Prop. Of M/S.Kruna Finvest, Rajkot. 403-Star Chambers, Harihar Chowk, Rajkot.

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys etc. (Others) - Assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 - Where client code modifications done by assessee-share broker were in negligible number, addition made by reversing such modifications was to be deleted [In favour of assessee] Hon'ble Kolkata Bench in case of Amratbhailnvestra Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No. 758/Kol/2014

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by determining total income at Rs.22,40,770/- and making addition of Rs. 21,92,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act is challenged by the assessee on two ( grievances )counts, Viz: (i)Notice is barred by limitation and (ii) Procedure laid down u/s 148A is not followed

KISHORBHAI DATTANI,JAM KHAMBHALIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kishorbhai Dattani Vs. Income Tax Office, Hospital C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Road, Near Rajdhani Hotel, Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Dwarka, Gujarat 361335 Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakpd7272M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/ 02 /2026

reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law. 2. The reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69A

HARIDAS MULJI RUGHANI,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 2(3), PORBANDAR

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

reassessment order u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law.\n3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts for making an\naddition of cash deposits pertaining to Specified bank notes of Rs.9,80,000/- treating\nthem as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) has erred

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

69A of the Act. And not charge tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Hence notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued by Ld.PCIT with a view that assessment order has passed without making due enquiry/verification hence in terms of explanation 2 of sec. 263 of the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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

69A of the Act. And not charge tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Hence notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued by Ld.PCIT with a view that assessment order has passed without making due enquiry/verification hence in terms of explanation 2 of sec. 263 of the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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

69A of the Act. And not charge tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Hence notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued by Ld.PCIT with a view that assessment order has passed without making due enquiry/verification hence in terms of explanation 2 of sec. 263 of the Act such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. The\nassessing officer also clarified that tax payable will be as per provision\nu/s115BBE of the Act, at maximum marginal rate @30% for the A.Y.2015-16.\nFurther, as the receipts in the bank accounts are not proved to be from business\nhence the income returned by the assessee (in Return

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

KETKIBEN SAMIRBHAI JANI,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

section 250 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal\nCentre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n18/08/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer\ndated 21/03/2024, u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nPage 1\nITA NO. 544/RJT/2025\nKetkiben Samirbhai Jani,\n2. Grounds

HASMUKHBHAI RAGHUBHAI GORIYA,OLD DHUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.195/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukh Raghubhai Goriya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Morbi Village: Old Dhuva, Taluka: J.K. Chamber, National High Way-8A, Wakaner, District: Morbi- Near Ravi Residency Hotel, Lalpar, 363622 Morbi-363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awupg 3221 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Act of Rs. 21,78,600/-, which may kindly be deleted and justice be done; Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an individual. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147

SHREE MARU KANSARA SONI GNATI,ANJAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act, in assessee’s case was initiated on the ground that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 30,20,300/- during demonetization period in the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessing officer recorded the reasons, and thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2021, after recording reason and obtaining necessary permission

SHRI ASHISH KANJIBHAI RATHOD,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2(2)(2),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012- 13. I.T.A No. 152/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Shri Ashish Kanjibhai Rathod vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE\nof the Act, at Rs.2,77,93,271/-.\n27. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter\nin appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has, on merit, partly allowed the appeal\nof the assessee, by giving the telescoping benefit of unsecured loan with estimated\nprofit and then confirmed the estimated addition

SHRI MAHESH K. BHUTIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR

147 of the Act has mentioned that the appellant did not submit any reply in relation to show cause notice dated 28/11/2017. Thus the AO presumed that the appellant was having nothing to say with regard to points raised in the show cause notice. Accordingly the AO made addition of Rs. 17,09,490/-(i.e. cash deposit

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. The assessing officer also clarified that tax payable will be as per provision u/s115BBE of the Act, at maximum marginal rate @30% for the A.Y.2015-16. Further, as the receipts in the bank accounts are not proved to be from business hence the income returned by the assessee (in Return

VALLABHBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI KATHIRIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(10) JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA, No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 510, 511 & 512/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vallabhbhai Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Ito Ward 2(10) Jamnagar Kathiriya Aayakar Bhavan, Jamnagar, Khitadia, Jamnagar, Jamnagar - 361006 Jamnagar – 361006 Pan No. - Αυτρκ7716N (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. The assessing officer also clarified that tax payable will be as per provision u/s115BBE of the Act, at maximum marginal rate @30% for the A.Y.2015-16. Further, as the receipts in the bank accounts are not proved to be from business hence the income returned by the assessee (in Return