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

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 of the Act. 6

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)

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

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

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)

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 are as follows

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

250/- and expenditure towards labour charges and other expenses net profit was of Rs.1,26,020/-, which was offered under section 44AD of the Act and the same was accepted by the AO. When the assessee undertook the contract work, the labour payment and material purchases were to be met by the assessee, and this was 6 being done

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

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.

6. In response to the notice issued by Ld.PCIT, u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted its reply stating that during the assessment proceedings asssessee submitted reply party-wise, and assessing officer examined the issue. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, the Ld.PCIT rejected the contention

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)

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 in law and on facts

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68. 6. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s DK Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] 250 Taxman

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.”

6 Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya vs. Pr. CIT the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry”, that such a course of action would be open. ——— From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed

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)

6. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shah Parag Gulabchand in ITA No.272/RJT/2023 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, order dated 31.07.2024 (supra). In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “11. We have given

SHIVEN CERAMIC LLP,MORBI vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.392/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S Shiven Ceramic Llp, बनाम Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, /Vs. 604/P5, 642/P1, Village Delhi Ghnutu, Lakhdhirpur Nr. Royal Touch Vitrified, Morbi-360 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adifs 8442 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that in an appeal filed, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, who has, vide

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

6. Regarding addition of Rs.10,06,250/- under section 69 ld. AR submitted that this has to be considered as "business income" as what is found is "business stock". It cannot have a different character than the business income. He submitted that in any case, tax has to be levied on total income after clubbing income under different heads

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties