ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUJ-W-201-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.731/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing)

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C 3. Brief facts of the Case that the assessee is a regular assessee. It is a mutual association (AOP) working for the common issues of consulting civil engineers. It is a non-trading and a non-profit organization and does not share the income. Thus the rules of mutuality principle are fully applicable to this

AMARDEEP EXPORTS,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(3), JNR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

234B, 234C of the Act” 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a firm. The assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. However, the assessee has made following transaction, during the year; 1. Remittance to non resident to a foreign company (Form 15CA) Rs.50,61,600/- 2. TDS return – other interest (section

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)

3. If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubt, or lack credit-worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. Page 23 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above contention of the assessee is not acceptable. The PCIT

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

234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal” Page 2 of 25 ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra 4. Brief facts of the case are that

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

234B of the Act. 9. That, the findings of the Ld. AO are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal” Page 2 of 25 ITA No. 611 & 612/RJT/2025 Dff Shri Gandhi Maulana Azas Shramjivi Ashra 4. Brief facts of the case are that

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

3 Shri Harilal Laxmidas Vaishnani vs. AC/DC(Int. Taxn.) 0003100100010196 2,50,000/- TOTAL 5,00,000/- 3.1 The AO observed that the assessee had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The AO issued notice to the assessee proposing to add the aforesaid amount as unexplained income in his hand in absence of any return