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)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act. Therefore, in our view it is not a case where the AO had not made due enquiries and also not the case where the AO had not applied his mind during the course of assessment proceedings on the issue in hand. Regarding the scope of proceedings

M/S. EMBOZA GRANITO PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

68 of the Act in respect of share capital & unsecured loan introduced/raised during the year and the claim of depreciation and additional depreciation. The Pr. CIT-3 made the following observations while passing the Order:- In view of the above, since the twin conditions namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous

M/S. PERTH CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of At. Unchi Mandal, Vs. Income Tax-3, Opp. 66 Kva Sub Station, Rajkot. Morbi-363641. Pan: Aahcp6296P

68 of the Act in respect of share capital of Rs. 15,15,02,000/- out of total share capital introduced of Rs. 19,99,00,000/- and gave a direction to revise the income, after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Pr. CIT-3 made the following observations while passing the Order:- “9. As noted above

CORUS VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act in the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee had filed appeal against the aforesaid order and the appeal was finally closed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Accordingly, once the unsecured loans have been taxed in the hands of the assessee at the time when they were received by the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

section 68 on unexplained cash credits is the correct position of law. It is requested to sustain the unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act and dismiss the appeal of the assessee while confirming the appeal of the Department." 46. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during appellate proceedings Ld.CIT(A) called

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SIYARAM METAL UDYOG PVT. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 8. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: “8. The contents of the assessment order and submission of the appellant have been perused. The AO treated the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM vs. KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 594/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Tax, Bbz-N-108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026

108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADOPJ1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR Date of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER, Dr. DINESH

SHIV SHAKTI GINNING AND PRESSING PVT. LTD,ADIPUR KUTCH vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 102/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Shiv Shakti Ginning & Pressing The Principal Commissioner Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, Plot No.1, Ward No.1/B, Rajkot-1, Opp. Aum Mandir, Rajkot. Industrial Area, Adipur-370205 (Gujarat)

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the PCIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice dated 16 January 2022. 4.1 The assessee in response to such show cause notice submitted that during the assessment proceeding detailed enquiries were made by the AO and the necessary required details were duly submitted. Thereafter, the AO after

ALPHA HI-TECH FUEL LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SNR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.68/Rjt/2009 (धििाधरणणवध/ Assessment Year 2005-06) Alpha Hi-Tech Fuel Limited, बिाम/ D.C.I.T, Station Road, Surendranagar Vs. Lakhtar, Dist. Surendranagar, Gujarat-382775 स्ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4258P (अपीला््/Appellant) (प्य््/ Respondent) अपीला््थरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R. प्य््करथरसे/Respondent By: सुिणाईकरतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 घोवणाकरतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2023 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

68,606.00 and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A who has confirmed the order of the AO. A.Y.2005-06 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running

MAYURBHAI JAYSUKHLAL SHAH,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 319/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 601, Cross Way, P.N. Marg, Income Tax, Jamnagar Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax.Pcit, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afgps1754J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 3. Later on, the Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year (AY) 2013-14, it was observed by Ld. PCIT that the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie erroneous

M\S. LEXICO CERAMICS,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner: “The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials

PARI ANIL GANDHI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

68 of the it Act it is totally wrong. Unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the it Act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified

PARI ANIL GANDHI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

68 of the it Act it is totally wrong. Unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the it Act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified

TRICOT IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal.”

68 in respect of unproved sundry credits is justified as assesses despite due opportunity did not furnish evidence as to the genuineness of such credits. Thus on the merits also I find that the contested additions are justified. The additions are therefore confirmed on merits as well. 7. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is to be treated

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)

68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain nothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside the books. The loose papers appear to be part of a 1992 diary, However, these loose papers consist of pages tom out from March, April, November

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)

68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain nothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside the books. The loose papers appear to be part of a 1992 diary, However, these loose papers consist of pages tom out from March, April, November

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

68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain nothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside the books. The loose papers appear to be part of a 1992 diary, However, these loose papers consist of pages tom out from March, April, November