SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 has disputed the Long-term capital gain earned on sale of the aforementioned script and stated that the investment is of penny stock and made the alleged addition of Rs. 39,90,501/- under section 68

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 14.11.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, dated 25.03.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 1. The Learned CIT (A) gravely erred

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal), dated 18.09.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 28.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

SHRI JAYANTILAL RUDABHAI BHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Jayantilal Rudabhai Bhalani Ito, Ward-1(3) Bilnath Krupa Vs Jamnagar. Opp: Khodiyar Colony Air Force Road, Nilkamal Colony Jamanagar 361 008. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

section 68 of the Act is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has shown gross contract receipt of Rs.15,75,250

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

250 Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to\nas 'the Act'), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11,\nAhmedabad [in short 'Ld.CIT(A)' on different dates, which in turn arise out of\nseparate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 153A/\n153C/143(3)/ 144 of the Act.\n2. Since, the issues involved

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 19.04.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2017. 2. The grounds

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29.05.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred

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 of the Act. Accordingly, it is clearly not a case where the AO has failed to apply his mind to the issue on hand. Further, it is also not a case where there was a clear omission on the part of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it is also in our view

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

250/- Security Transaction Tax 20.56/- Shares Transaction Expense 7777.80 Total 1,65,048.36/- The assessee submitted copy of contract note received from M/s Sharukh N. Tara, vide paper book page no.14 to 15.Immediately after purchasing the shares a request letter regarding demat account details was duly sent to assessee by the Broker M/s. Sharukh N. Tara which is placed

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

68 of the Act. Based on these facts, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that order passed by the learned PCIT may be quashed. Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. 9. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that first of all the assessee has failed to prove source of source, in respect of share capital

KISHORBHAI DATTANI,JAM KHAMBHALIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kishorbhai Dattani Vs. Income Tax Office, Hospital C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Road, Near Rajdhani Hotel, Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Dwarka, Gujarat 361335 Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakpd7272M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/ 02 /2026

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 13/08/2025, 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 28/09/2021. Kishorbhai Dattani vs. ITO Ward – 1 Dwarka 2. The Grounds of appeal raised

KETKIBEN SAMIRBHAI JANI,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

68,667/-, which amounts to Rs. 13,493/-, and tax this amount at the normal rate of income tax, not under section 115BBE.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250

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

section 68.\n6.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s DK Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250\nTaxman

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

section 68.\n6.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s DK Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250\nTaxman

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 68.\n6.\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax V/s DK Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250\nTaxman

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

250 of the Act was downloaded from the E- filing Portal by the tax consultant of the appellant and it came to be noticed that the first appeal of the Appellant was already disposed of on 22-11-2023 by the CIT(A). Page 2 of 9 Viren Vallabhidas Dhakan That thereafter all required documents were sent to tax consultant

SHRI LALITBHAI ASHUMAL GANGWANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 in respect of unexplained cash deposits. The penalty is therefore sustained on merits too. 6) In the result, the appeal is to be treated dismissed both for want of prosecution and on merit.” 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250

SHRI LALITBHAI ASHUMAL GANGWANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 in respect of unexplained cash deposits. The penalty is therefore sustained on merits too. 6) In the result, the appeal is to be treated dismissed both for want of prosecution and on merit.” 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250

SHRI LALITBHAI ASHUMAL GANGWANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 in respect of unexplained cash deposits. The penalty is therefore sustained on merits too. 6) In the result, the appeal is to be treated dismissed both for want of prosecution and on merit.” 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250