AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

20,276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

20,276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

20,276/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal/not allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return was not filed as per Section 139(1) of the Act but within the time

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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.”

20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous, if it has been passed without making enquiries or verification, which should have been made. In our considered view, this provison shall apply, if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer shall have carried

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

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

119; or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. Thus, the argument that the assessing officer collected details/information, during assessment proceedings, does not hold good any more. Once

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)

119, or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person, As per the above Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 8.Grievances raised by the assessee

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 8.Grievances raised by the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

68,516 as provision against NPA in the profit and loss account, which was claimed as deduction in terms of section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction claimed as aforesaid on the ground that the provision of NPA was not in the nature of expenditure or loss but more

RAJASHIBHAI BHIMABHAI BAPODARA,PORBANDAR vs. WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bapodara Main Chowk Ward – 2(4), Porbandar – Bapodar, Ranavav Porbandar, 360570 Gujarat - 360570 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arspb7433P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119 of Income Tax Act, which are discussing and providing a blanket exemption of Rs. 2,50,000/- per person. In the Press release dated 18.11.2016 also, it was stated that: “It was announced by the Government earlier that small deposits made in the banks by artisans, workers, housewives, etc. would not be questioned by the Income

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

68, 69A of the act. The assessee has also referred he flow of funds along with bank statement placed at page numbers 5-36 of the paper book. 17. Regarding addition of Rs.23,76,000/-, the assessee submitted that in the case of his father, the substantive addition has been set aside by the learned CIT(A) to the file

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

20. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, while the proceedings under section ITA Nos.30,33 & 28/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2015-16 10 143(3) were going on/in process, the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 17-08-2015 was issued

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

119; or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.” The ld.PCIT noticed that as per the above Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act, the order passed