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

loss (unabsorbed portion of depreciation) Same was allowed - Principal Commissioner invoked revision under section 263 on ground that assessee's income included deemed income being unexplained cash credit under section 68 which is not classified under any heads of income under section 14 therefore, set

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

setting aside the assessment order passed by the Id. A.O. (NEAC) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & (3B) of the Act dated 01.04.2021 and directing de-novo assessment to make proper inquiries with respect to share capital subscription of Rs.10,15,00,000/-without controverting the submissions of the appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

68, section 69, section 69A,\nsection 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income\nfurnished under section 139; or\n(b)determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section\n68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income\nis not covered under clause

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that it is settled law that the issue of claim of set off of brought forward loss is to be examined in the year in which the set off is so claimed. This regard, IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

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)

loss of " 13,47,717/-. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act determining total income of " 26,12,75,610/- after making the following additions: I.T.A No. 117/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT Sr. Amount (Rs.) Nature Section No. 1. 7,75,000 Unexplained Gift 68

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

68\"\n24. Our view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Calcutta in the case of Kaushalya Dealers (P.) Ltd, [2023] 147\ntaxmann.com 526 (Calcutta), wherein, on identical facts, as that of\nassessee, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT, under section 263 of\nthe Act, was quashed, holding as follows:\n“Where

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble\nTribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under:\n\"3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the\nreasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered\nopinion that assessee was under a bona fide

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

Section 68 as applicable to the year under appeal, the\nassessee was not required to prove the source of the source in respect of unsecured\nloans.\n4.The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in setting aside the\nassessment order passed by the ld. A.O. u/s. 143(3) and directing de-novo assessment\nregarding verification

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

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

section 144B of the I.T. Act, dated 31-03-\n2022.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.57,61,000/-made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained fresh unsecured\nloan.\n(3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

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

loss claimed of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- to be carry forward to subsequent years.\n2\nITA 276/Rjt/2019 (AY 2016-17) SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD.\n5. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short \"Ld PCIT\") exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On verification of the assessment records, it was noticed

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

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 to the capital receipts prior to the commencement of income generating activities. 4. The Hon’ble Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the submissions of the appellant in true perspective on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

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 68 of the Act as creditworthiness of the lenders/shareholders not established. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 3. Any other ground that the Revenue

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

loss a/c, capital a/c etc. Absence of books of accounts, house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts