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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

263 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. The assessee for the year under consideration filed the return of income declaring total loss at Rs. 1,46,47,401.00. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was scrutinized under section

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

263 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. The assessee for the year under consideration filed the return of income declaring total loss at Rs. 1,46,47,401.00. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was scrutinized under section

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

263 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. The assessee for the year under consideration filed the return of income declaring total loss at Rs. 1,46,47,401.00. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was scrutinized under section

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

263 of the Act. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. The assessee for the year under consideration filed the return of income declaring total loss at Rs. 1,46,47,401.00. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was scrutinized under section

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

1. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the power exercised by learned PCIT u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, in law, is patently illegal as the Reassessment Order subjected to revision is not erroneous or nor it is prejudicial to interest

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

263. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Rajkot erred in holding that the A.O. has erroneously allowed excess claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act and that there was incorrect application of law and therefore erred in setting aside the assessment order.” 3. As transpires from the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT before

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 68 of the Act in respect of (1) equity share capital of Rs.8,60,95,000/-and (2) unsecured loan of Rs.2,33,90,000/-and thereby setting aside the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 16.03.2021. The order passed u/s 263

VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

68 2. 18,83,64,331/- Unexplained sundry Section not creditors mentioned by the A.O. 3. 6,00,56,842/- 5% of purchase Section not mentioned by the A.O. 4. 1,34,27,150/- Bogus Liability as Section not advance from debtor mentioned by the A.O. 4. The Principal CIT initiated 263

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

section 68 of the Acting respect of share capital of Rs. 15,15,02,000/- out of total of Rs.19,99,00,000/- and thereby setting aside the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.12.17. The order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. CIT is totally unjustified on facts as also

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

1) in terms of provision of section 68 of the Act in respect of equity share capital of Rs.18.50 Crores (2) claim of depreciation of Rs.6.25 crores on plant and machinery installed during the year under consideration and (3) deduction claimed on account of investment allowance u/s.32AC of the Act of Rs.5.11 crores and thereby setting aside the order

M/S. ICONIC INFRABUILD LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT- CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

1] and in The C.I.T., West Bengal, II, Calcutta vs. M/s Electro House[2]. Paragraph 4 of the decision in The C.I.T., West Bengal, II, Calcutta vs. M/s Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder:” In view of the above we hold that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act being

M\S. LEXICO CERAMICS,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

68 of the Act on account of capital introduced by the 2 partner only. Thus, the allegation of Pr. CIT for initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification with regard to other partners is factually incorrect. At this juncture we also feel pertinent to refer

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.”

1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in initiating and passing the order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT has erred in setting aside the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income

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