M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) as\nwell as section 143(2) and after considering those materials and explanation, the ITO has come to a definite\nconclusion. The Commissioner did not agree with the conclusion reached by the ITO. Section 263 does not\nempower him to take action on these facts to arrive at the conclusion that the order passed

SUNBOND CERAMIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. JCIT, MORBI RANGE, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

142(1) of the Act were issued which were duly served upon the assessee. 5. In response to the notices issued, the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and furnished the required details. The books of accounts of the assessee are audited as per the requirement of section 44AB of the I.T. Act. The copy

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

142(1) and 143(2) was also issued to the assessee, which also remained unattended. According to the Assessing Officer, whatever documents impounded during the survey, copies of which were furnished to the assessee, whenever asked for by the assessee. Despite that the assessee has not turned up for finalization of the assessment. Therefore, based on the material available with

M/S. PAREKH ISHWARLAL CHUNILAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

68 of the Act which resulted in understatement of the income, therefore, the PCIT has rightly invoked Section 263 and mentioned that the applicability of provisions of Section 115BBE would have been examined on this issue and thus the PCIT has rightly exercised revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Ld. DR relied upon the order

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

sections": ["263", "143(3)", "68", "32AC", "142(1)"], "issues": "Whether the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

142(1) of the Act and the copy of the reply in response to such notice dated 7th July 2017 placed on pages 18 to 386 of the paper book. 5.1. The learned AR further submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to most of the lenders

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

142(1) of the Act and the copy of the reply in response to such notice dated 7th July 2017 placed on pages 18 to 386 of the paper book. 5.1. The learned AR further submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to most of the lenders

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

142(1) of the Act and the copy of the reply in response to such notice dated 7th July 2017 placed on pages 18 to 386 of the paper book. 5.1. The learned AR further submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to most of the lenders

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

142(1) of the Act and the copy of the reply in response to such notice dated 7th July 2017 placed on pages 18 to 386 of the paper book. 5.1. The learned AR further submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to most of the lenders

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

142(1) of the Act and the copy of the reply in response to such notice dated 7th July 2017 placed on pages 18 to 386 of the paper book. 5.1. The learned AR further submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to most of the lenders

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

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment order passed without following mandatory procedures under Section 144B is void ab initio? Whether the additions made on account of share capital and unsecured loans under Section 68

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "44AD", "68", "271B", "133(6)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax rightly

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of\nsection 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings\nu/s 274 r.w.s. 270A and 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(8). That

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section