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)

credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-. On appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground relating to commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same. About addition of Rs. 46,50,353/-, made by the assessing officer, on account of peak investment in respect of undisclosed bank accounts

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

u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 for reassessment. Since the reassessment has no relation with provisions of section 148 and 147, the reply becomes null and void. 5. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 11-09-2021 and the date of compliance has been fixed as 16-09-2021. In compliance of the above, the assessee filed his reply

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)

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 in disregarding the specific inquiry on the shares GLOBAL SECUR undertaken

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

u/s. 68, as alleged unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares. 13. We note that the assessee contests the validity of reopening as well as the validity of the reassessment order passed by the A.O. under the provisions of section 147

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

u/s. 68, as alleged unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares. 13. We note that the assessee contests the validity of reopening as well as the validity of the reassessment order passed by the A.O. under the provisions of section 147

PALLAV,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

147 of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act, was issued to the assessee, on 31/03/2021. The assessee filed his return of income, in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, declaring total income of Rs. 6,00,410/-on 28/05/2021.Subsequently the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 27/08/2021. The assessee did not comply

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 read with section 115BBE

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

credits. The data originally disseminated in case of cheque/DD contains the valid PAN in few cases covering 2-3 crores of Takdir Trader v. PCIT transaction. Subsequently, during the search assessment, the department was in receipt of credible information from O/o the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vide letter dated 08.02.2018 where the beneficiaries were identified in large numbers

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

credits. The data originally disseminated in case of cheque/DD contains the valid PAN in few cases covering 2-3 crores of Takdir Trader v. PCIT transaction. Subsequently, during the search assessment, the department was in receipt of credible information from O/o the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vide letter dated 08.02.2018 where the beneficiaries were identified in large numbers

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

credits. The data originally disseminated in case of cheque/DD contains the valid PAN in few cases covering 2-3 crores of Takdir Trader v. PCIT transaction. Subsequently, during the search assessment, the department was in receipt of credible information from O/o the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vide letter dated 08.02.2018 where the beneficiaries were identified in large numbers

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

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

u/s 147 of the Act on account of deposit of cash in the bank accounts, therefore, the source of cash was duly enquired by the AO during the reassessment proceedings which was sufficiently explained to the AO. However, the ld CIT disregarded the contention of the assessee and held the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial

ASHISH MANSUKHLAL GOKANI,MITHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.483/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 बनाम Ashish Mansukhlal Gokani Commissioner Of Income Tax Mithapur, Dist: Devbhoomi, (Appeals), / Dwarka (Guj) – 361345 National Faceless Assessment Vs [Mahesh N. Paun Advocate, Centre (Nfac), Income Tax Taxation Consultant, Shreeji Department, Delhi Chambers, 17-Nava Para, Near S.B.I. (Adb), Jam-Khambhaliya, Gujarat – 361305] "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappg2259N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

unexplained income with regard to bank credits which made out of normal course of business and initiate the separately penalty proceeding u/s. 271B as well as Ld. Commissioner of Appeals (NFAC) by not considering the submission fully, rather than deleting the addition partly substained to the extent of Rs. 7,49,971/-. (3) Learned Commissioner of Appeals (NFAC) erred

LATE OGHADBHAI KARABHAI ODEDRA (L/H BABUBHAI ODEDRA),PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.915/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedara Vs. Income Tax Officer, (L/H Babubhai Oghadbhai Odedara) Ward-2(4), At Bavalvav, Porbandar, Porbandar Gujarat-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajpo3410B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/ 03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am

147 of the Act which is invalid as the case has been re-opened by Non-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 2. Re-opening u/s.147 of the Act is not valid as the certified copy of the reasons have not been provided by the Ld. AO within 30 days of the filing of the return by the assessee as per directions issued

SHRI PRASHANT JENTILAL RAMANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the same Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A Nos. 152 & 153/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Prashant Jentilal Ramani Vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that

SHRI PRASHANT JENTILAL RAMANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the same Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A Nos. 152 & 153/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Prashant Jentilal Ramani Vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that

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)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 hs set aside for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed supraand direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Nationsment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s reational Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition

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)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 hs set aside for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed supraand direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Nationsment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s reational Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition

AMIBEN RAJESHKUMAR PUNATAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.24/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar, बनाम/ Ito, Ashish, 41-New Jagnath Plot, Vs Ward – 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001(Gujarat) Rajkot "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahrpp4181F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

Cash on net pre-arranged bogus LTCG or STCL. On going through the case records as well as return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee had shown long term capital gain of Rs.13,17,084/- from sales of Shares Atlantis Infrastructure & Finance Ltd with Script Code