M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding

SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR N. AYACHI, GANDHIDHAM,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ADDL. CIT, GANDHIDHAM

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard, as the Assessing Officer has not complied with the direction given in the remand report

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime, as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) deemed these reassessment notices under the old regime, as show cause notices under the new regime with effect from the date of issuance of the reassessment notices. Therefore, the logical effect of the creation of the legal fiction by Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the time surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA will

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

138 taxmann.com 571] dismissed the writ petition of the assessee. In the above referred cases supra, the CPC has made prima-facie adjustment under sub-clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) which states that- "on incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return". In the said writ petitions the Hon'ble Madras

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

138 taxmann.com 571] dismissed the writ petition of the assessee. In the above referred cases supra, the CPC has made prima-facie adjustment under sub-clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) which states that- "on incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return". In the said writ petitions the Hon'ble Madras

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, 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

138 taxmann.com 571] dismissed the writ petition of the assessee. In the above referred cases supra, the CPC has made prima-facie adjustment under sub-clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) which states that- "on incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return". In the said writ petitions the Hon'ble Madras

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

138 taxmann.com 571] dismissed the writ petition of the assessee. In the above referred cases supra, the CPC has made prima-facie adjustment under sub-clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) which states that- "on incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return". In the said writ petitions the Hon'ble Madras

M/S. GANGA GLAZED TILES PVT. LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the act was also initiated in the following cases: - Ganga Glazed Ties – AY 08-09 - Ganga Glazed Ties P.L. – AY 08-09 - Gangotri Glazed Tiles – AY 08-09 - Gokul Cera Pvt. Ltd. – AY 08-09 - Vrundavan Cera P. Ltd. – AY 08-09 - Varmora Grantio P. Ltd. – AY 08-09 - Italica Tiles

KIRAN HARUBHAI DANGAR,JUNAGADH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RAJKOT

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

138 to 142 of Annexure A-1. 3. As per the above Satakhat, per vigha price of the said land is Rs 5,82,500/-, thereby totalling Rs.43,68,750/- for 07 Vigha & 08 guntha land. As per the above Satakhat(English Translation). "initially the land was in the name of Sanatkuar Kiritkuar Pandya. After that he sold the land

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para 6.2 and 6.4 has held as under: “Under the substituted provisions of the I.T. Act vide Finance Act, 2021, no notice under section 148 can be issued without following the procedure prescribed under section 148A. Along with the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas secondary documentary evidence is the evidence that includes copies of documents that can be presented in the court under certain circumstances or as mentioned in Section 63 and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter