MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

263", "Section 10(38)", "Section 68", "Section 244A", "Section 24", "Section 143(3)", "Section 142(1

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

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

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 143(3) of\nthe Act, dated 26/12/2017, for revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary

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. WINSUN 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. 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. 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

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

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

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

68\"\n24.\nOur view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of\nCalcutta in the case of Kaushalya Dealers (P.) Ltd, [2023] 147 taxmann.com 526\n(Calcutta), wherein, on identical facts, as that of assessee, the revision order passed\nby the ld. PCIT, under section 263 of the Act, was quashed, holding as follows

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

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

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

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

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