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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on an amount of Rs. 796/- on 28.02.2022. 7.2. The Ld.PCIT issued notice dated 08.03.2024 considering that the AO failed to treat aggregate amount of Rs. 286050 given by the assessee to M/s. National Shroff during the year as unexplained money y/s. 69A of the Act. And not charge tax u/s. 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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on an amount of Rs. 796/- on 28.02.2022. 7.2. The Ld.PCIT issued notice dated 08.03.2024 considering that the AO failed to treat aggregate amount of Rs. 286050 given by the assessee to M/s. National Shroff during the year as unexplained money y/s. 69A of the Act. And not charge tax u/s. 115BBE

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

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

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 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

money through banking channel from his son namely Sumit K. Bhagiya who is maintaining NRE account with HDFC bank and residing in USA. 4.8 All the bank statements were furnished to the AO during the assessment proceedings. 4.9 As the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on account of deposit of cash in the bank accounts, therefore

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. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts for making an addition of cash deposits pertaining to Specified bank notes of Rs.9,80,000/- treating them as unexplained money

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

SHRI SANJAY GORDHANDAS VAJA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.89/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja Income Tax Officer Int. 202, Harmony Heights, Capital Road, बनाम Tax), Gandhidham, Income- Science City, Ahmedabad-380 060 Tax Office, Amruta Estate /Vs. Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpv 3289 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, (After Incorporating Findings Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 Mumbai, Dated 29.12.2023), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) .

reassessment made on the basis of the same is required to be cancelled. Sanjay G Vaja 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, which is illegal and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing show cause

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)

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 under

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)

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 under

MS ADITYA PLASTIC,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3 ITA No.185&186/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-14) Aditya Plastic

MS ADITYA PLASTIC,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT-, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

unexplained money. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3 ITA No.185&186/Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-14) Aditya Plastic

RAMJI HARAKHJI FEFAR (HUF),RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.397/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramji Harakhjifefar(Huf), Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 (1) (3), “Gayatri”, 3- Navjyot Park, Kalawad Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Off 150Feet Ring Road, Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanhr5839R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shriabhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ldsr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20 /12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06 /03/2025

147 is reason to believe which has been duly. 9. We note that the assessee entered into transaction for purchase of immovable property worth of Rs.50,10,111/- and assessee has not filed return of income for the year. Therefore, source of purchase of immovable property remains unexplained, hence therefore the case was reopened. The information given in reason recorded

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

money in their hands either through cash or through cheque and the veracity and genuineness of huge loans taken by them, without making interest payment for years together, for investing/ giving loans to the assesses- company and others. The Trade creditors shall also be properly verified. Further, the bills/ vouchers of the new Plant & M/c installed, on which investment allowance

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)

unexplained and required to be taxed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped to the extent of Rs.27,91,500/- for the A.Y.2011-12 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T., Act, 1961. The above income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part

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)

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, addition to this extent of 10% of cash deposits/credits which comes to Rs.15,86,480/- was confirmed by ld.CIT(A) and balance addition was deleted. 9. During the appellate proceedings, before learned CIT(A), the assessee has raised additional technical/legal grounds, such as notice under section 147/148

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)

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, addition to this extent of 10% of cash deposits/credits which comes to Rs.15,86,480/- was confirmed by ld.CIT(A) and balance addition was deleted. 9. During the appellate proceedings, before learned CIT(A), the assessee has raised additional technical/legal grounds, such as notice under section 147/148