KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

justice settled by the Apex Court. 5. The Ld. NFAC Alleged in its impugned Order that on appellant's request, Notice under section 250 was issued scheduling the hearing through Video Conferencing on 09.02.2024 at 3.00 PM, However, there was no response from the appellant to the said opportunitygranted for hearing which is far from truth and facts

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act despite having rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act and overlooking the fact that the estimated addition of 12.5% of purchase value cannot be considered "any sum found credited in Books" of the Assessee, 8. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the order of the Learned

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

natural justice. 3. The Hon’ble Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot has erred in law as well as on facts in passing a cryptic order u/s 263 of the Act bereft of any justifiable reasoning without even controverting the legal submissions of the appellant as to the non-application of Section 68

RISHABH STEEL SUPPLIER,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

NARENDRAKUMAR BHANWERLAL NIMBAVAT HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

OSWAL AGRICOMM PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

SHRI RAMJI HAMIR VIRDA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

MAHAVIR IMPEX,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

OSWAL PETROCHEM,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

PRIYANSI CORPORATION,DIST RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

justice forming part of the common law, would naturally be applicable to income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer, बनाम / National Faceless Assessment Plot No..4345, Gidc, Phase- Vs. Centre, Delhi/Dcit, Circle-3, Iii, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361008 स्थायी लेखा सं/. जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6122 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order Captioned Three Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To

justice settled by the Apex Court. 5. The Ld. NFAC Alleged in its impugned Order that on appellant's request, Notice under section 250 was issued scheduling the hearing through Video Conferencing on 09.02.2024 at 3.00 PM, However, there was no response from the appellant to the said opportunitygranted for hearing which is far from truth and facts

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

justice and fairness are maintained. 6. In this immediate case of today revenue had relied upon the provision of section 32 of the Indian evidence act 1872 which is reproduced for ready reference:- “ 32. Cases in which statements of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. is relevant – statements, writer or verbal, of relevant facts

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

section 68 of the Act, the assessee needs to explain the source of the source. However, the assessee has failed to prove the source of the source, as necessary documents and evidences were not filed by the assessee. As per ld DR balance-sheet and confirmation of certain shareholders are not available. The assessee has not submitted the entire documents

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice and has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant. * Failure to Consider Merits of the Case The CIT(A) mechanically dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, failing to consider the appellant's submissions made during the assessment proceedings, and without examining the material and explanations already on record. * Reason for Non-Compliance - Medical Emergency The appellant was unable

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Thus the addition made under 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. 11. However, for the completeness of the understanding, we note that the assessee has declared her income from the activity of tailoring/embroidery which has been duly accepted by the revenue. Once the revenue disbelief the activity of the assessee, then

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice, though the assessee has specifically prayed to grant an opportunity of heard and the same was not granted. Thus, the order is passed under the gross violation of maxim Audi Alteram Partem read with article 14 of the constitution and therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. 2. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

justice. (4) Without prejudice to the above, your appellant craves leave to add amend, alter, vary or withdraw all or any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

justice. (4) Without prejudice to the above, your appellant craves leave to add amend, alter, vary or withdraw all or any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer