SHRI DINESHBHAI CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Dissatisfied with the addition, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated 24.3.2009 allowed the appeal partly and deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.38,45,000/-. The balance i.e. Rs.43.10 lakhs was confirmed. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee as well as Revenue came

SHRI RAMESH CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Dissatisfied with the addition, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated 24.3.2009 allowed the appeal partly and deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.38,45,000/-. The balance i.e. Rs.43.10 lakhs was confirmed. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee as well as Revenue came

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

VIJUBHA JITUBHA JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

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

section 115BBE of the Act prescribes a specific rate at which additions made to incomes u/s 68,69,69A/B/C are to be taxed. This rate being much higher than the normal rate of tax. 7.2 We shall first deal with the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that these additions/disallowance of sundry creditors and bogus expenses made

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

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

130 taxmann.com 294 (SC);\n• Dipesh Lalchand Shah (2022) 143 taxmann.com 419 (Guj. HC);\n• Kutch District Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (2024) 159\ntaxmann.com 347 (Rajkot Trib.);\n• Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhameliya (2023) 151 taxmann.com 493 (Surat\nTrib.);\n• Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel (2023) 150 taxmann.com 71 (Surat Trib.);\n8.1. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee relied, there

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the PCIT proposed to hold the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 9th December 2018 as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue by issuing notice under section 263 of the Act dated 9th November 2020. 3.3 The assessee in response to such show cause notice

M/S. WINMAX CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,WAKANER vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT,, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

M/S. WINTOP VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

SAPPHIRE RECLAIM RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,SHAPAR, RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is rejected

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 272/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Sapphire Reclaim Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Bhoomi Industrial Area, Plot No: Income Tax-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhawan, Race 1/44, National Highway 27, Veraval (Shapar), Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360311 Rajkot Gujarat - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs6205B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025

130 taxmann.com 294 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: Section 69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (unsecured loans) - Assessment year 2013-14 - assessee-company had received unsecured loans from Sapphire Reclaim Rubber Pvt. Ltd two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in assessee

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

130/-. 5. Thereafter,, on examination of records by ld. Pr.CIT, Rajkot-1, it was observed by him that no bifurcation of WIP as on the date of the survey is placed on record. It was also noticed that there were no details to correlate between "on money" received and expense incurred towards WIP. Further, it was noticed that no details

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

130/-. 5. Thereafter,, on examination of records by ld. Pr.CIT, Rajkot-1, it was observed by him that no bifurcation of WIP as on the date of the survey is placed on record. It was also noticed that there were no details to correlate between "on money" received and expense incurred towards WIP. Further, it was noticed that no details

KUNJAN JAGDISHCHANDRA SEDANI,JAMANGAR 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 Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.197/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kunjan Jagdishchandra Sedani Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 18B, Parikunj, Mahavir Society, Income Tax, Jamnagar Room No. 101, 1St Floor Aayakar Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar- 361008 Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Erips2050H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit”), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year 2015- 16.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: 1. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Setting-Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Even When The Order As Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 2. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Erred In Law & In Facts By Setting-Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, Kunjan Jagdishchandra Sedani

68 whereas cash deposit in bank account by lenders is only Rs. 25,00,000/- as identified by Hon'ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar himself. 2. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, was filed by the assessee, on 31/08/2016, declaring total income