SHRI HARILAL LAXMIDAS VAISHNANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT/DCIT(INT. TAXN.), RAJKOT

In the result, in view of the discussion above and the facts placed on record before us, we are hereby allowing the appeal of the assessee

TDS was also deducted at the time of payment. In our considered view, the assessee has been able to sufficiently demonstrate that he was having sufficient cash balance from past withdrawals in order to make the aforesaid deposits

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

cash deposited by the landers is not accounted income and confirmed that addition of Rs.15,82,200/- such action is against the natural justice.” 4. Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue relates to one issue, that is, deleting the addition of Rs.3,47,91,594/-, made by the assessing officer resorting to the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT vs. SUNSHINE TILES COMPANY PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 649 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sunshine Tiles Company Pvt. Tax, Cir-1(1), Rajkot Ltd. Vs. Room No. 502, Aayakar Bhavan, S. No. 150 160/P1, B/H Sunhil Race Course Ring Road, Ceramics 8-A, National Highway, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot – 360001 [Pan No.: Aancs3264L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

cash deposit just prior to advancing of loan. The loan has been subsequently repaid through banking channel only. Interest is paid on the deposit and TDS

SHRI GAJRAJ NATUBHA JETHVA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-3 (2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 426/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Gajraj Natubha Jethva Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward – Sikka Patiya, Moti Khavadi, 3(2), Taranjali Building, Nr. Amber Jamnagar-361140 Cinema, Pt. Nehru Marg, Hospital Road Jamnagar - 361140 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akypj9388E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Astha Maniyar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

TDS liability, cash deposits, complete details of expenses, ledger for commission paid of Rs. 25,64,689/-, credit note to retailer

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

cash deposit made by assessee in any of bank accounts and there was no information of any escaped income with Assessing Officer so as to initiate reopening proceedings - Moreover, explanation given by assessee in reply to notice under section 148A(a) and documents annexed therewith, prima facie, showed that there was no income earned by assessee but there was excess

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

cash deposit made by assessee in any of bank accounts and there was no information of any escaped income with Assessing Officer so as to initiate reopening proceedings - Moreover, explanation given by assessee in reply to notice under section 148A(a) and documents annexed therewith, prima facie, showed that there was no income earned by assessee but there was excess

SHIVAMY OVERSWAS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1)(5), RAJKOT

The appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.393/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Shivamy Overseas (India) Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Ltd. 1(1)(5) Shop No. 1, New Enpire Aaykar Bhavan, Race Ring Road, Building, Nr. Indira Circle, Rajkot - 360001 University Road Rajkot – 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalcs8171Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash generated is deposited in bank account. 4) That the appellant has shown commission income of Rs. 54054/-. However TDS

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

cash to the Survey team, deposited applicable Income Tax there on. Then after your Appellant's case was selected for compulsory scrutiny, your Appellant, necessary details, documents and explanations, Ld.assessing officer Accepted the retune income and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) on 15-04-2021. Then after Ld. PCIT Jamnagar passed an order u/s. 263 for levy of higher

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

cash to the Survey team, deposited applicable Income Tax there on. Then after your Appellant's case was selected for compulsory scrutiny, your Appellant, necessary details, documents and explanations, Ld.assessing officer Accepted the retune income and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) on 15-04-2021. Then after Ld. PCIT Jamnagar passed an order u/s. 263 for levy of higher

PARTH GARLIC,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

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

deposited cash which does not have nexus with the sales instances recorded by the assessee. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, inadequacy of supportive documents to claim income and expenditure, while making the assessment on dated 08.04.2021, the assessing officer rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145 of the IT Act. Therefore

THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 8. About disallowance u/s.43B of the Act, the assessing officer, while perusing Form no.3CD of Tax Audit Report, it was noticed that as per Col. No.26(i)(B)(b) the assessee has incurred following liabilities by debiting P & L account, however, assessee had not paid the said liabilities on or before the date

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

cash to the Survey team, deposited applicable\nIncome Tax there on.\nThen after your Appellant's case was selected for compulsory scrutiny, your\nAppellant, necessary details, documents and explanations, Ld.assessing officer\nAccepted the retune income and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) on 15-04-2021.\nThen after Ld. PCIT Jamnagar passed an order u/s. 263 for levy of higher

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S TIRTH AGRO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,, GONDAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

cash from the bank after depositing the cheque and these parties were operating from the premises of the assessee do not render the claim of the assessee as false. vii. Similarly, the mismatch in the signature cannot be a ground to hold the job charges as bogus ones the transaction has been established based on other documents including

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

TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of loan

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

TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of loan

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

TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account of loan

APEX IRRIGATION,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

Cash Credit u/s. 68 2. Expenditure Disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) 3. Expenditure disallowed as revenue and treated as capital expenditure Apex Irrigation 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 461 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant para of the application for delay

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)

TDS amount Rs.3,57,008/- and repayment of unsecured loan of Rs.3,33,744/- net closing balance of unsecured loan accepted during the F.Y.2017-18 of Rs.8,36,60,540/-. The contention of the assessee is accepted and unsecured loan for the year under consideration is taken amounting to Rs.8,36,60,540/-, Therefore, such cash credit is remained unexplained