THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 4. On account of Bogus 3,36,44,675/- claim of transport expenses 12,47,93,880/- 4.2 The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT-A who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 31-10-2014 by directing

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 4. On account of Bogus 3,36,44,675/- claim of transport expenses 12,47,93,880/- 4.2 The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT-A who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 31-10-2014 by directing

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009, 2009-10 & 2010-11 D.C.I.T, M/S.Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Ekta House, 2-Jalaram, Rajkot University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aaccb1167C

TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) ITA nos.54-56/Rjt/2017 Asstt. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 4. On account of Bogus 3,36,44,675/- claim of transport expenses 12,47,93,880/- 4.2 The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT-A who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 31-10-2014 by directing

SHREE KARMAL KOTADA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.328/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karmal Kotadajuth Seva Vs. The Ito Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot. Sahakarimandali Limited. Karmal Kotada, Rajkot.

274 dated 26.09.2021 and imposed penalty under section 271B of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. SHREE KARMAL KOTDA JUTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has reduced the penalty from Rs.1,50,000 to Rs.1

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya 2. The assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

274 ITR 534(Guj) is applicable to the facts of this case and respectfully following the same I am of the considered view that it is reasonable to estimate the profit earned out of such unrecorded financial transactions at Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the circumstances, the additions based on Annx-A2,A3,A4,A8 amounting to Rs.5

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

TDS amounting to Rs. 57,298/-. (4). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 25,35,850/- on account of difference in receipts as per books of accounts and form 26AS. (5). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits

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

274 r.w.s. 271AAC of the IT. Act, 1961. 8. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 9. That, the appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 9,91,1 20/- 3. The brief facts

JAYESH PRAHLADBHAI DHUKER- HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 143(3). The assessee was engaged in the business of transportation of goods at the relevant time under the name and style of its proprietorship concern i.e. M/s.Surya Cargo Movers. A perusal of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that he has shown expenses/purchases of Rs.1,75,81,274/- and Rs.2,09,12,140/- in the Asstt.Year

JAYESH PRAHLADBHAI DHUKER- HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 143(3). The assessee was engaged in the business of transportation of goods at the relevant time under the name and style of its proprietorship concern i.e. M/s.Surya Cargo Movers. A perusal of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that he has shown expenses/purchases of Rs.1,75,81,274/- and Rs.2,09,12,140/- in the Asstt.Year

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. , GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

274/- disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 19,49,485/- to the total income of the assessee. After having rejected the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 1,95,92,793/- on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing

M/S. SHIVABYAY PROJECT PVT. LTD. ,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

274/- disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the difference of Rs. 19,49,485/- to the total income of the assessee. After having rejected the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 1,95,92,793/- on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

THE ITO, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDER,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

TDS Certificate issued by Agrawal Auto mobiles it is notice that assessee has received freight amounting to Rs.13,42,459/- from Agrawal Auto Mobiles. And therefore, the assessee's claim is not tenable. (4) The assessee has claim to have received Rs.l,39,000/- as maturity amount of recurring deposit. However, failed to substantiate here claim. (5) The assessee

SMT. JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDERKUMAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

TDS Certificate issued by Agrawal Auto mobiles it is notice that assessee has received freight amounting to Rs.13,42,459/- from Agrawal Auto Mobiles. And therefore, the assessee's claim is not tenable. (4) The assessee has claim to have received Rs.l,39,000/- as maturity amount of recurring deposit. However, failed to substantiate here claim. (5) The assessee

SMT. CHANDRAKALA M. JUNEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

TDS Certificate issued by Agrawal Auto mobiles it is notice that assessee has received freight amounting to Rs.13,42,459/- from Agrawal Auto Mobiles. And therefore, the assessee's claim is not tenable. (4) The assessee has claim to have received Rs.l,39,000/- as maturity amount of recurring deposit. However, failed to substantiate here claim. (5) The assessee

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:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 20.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 29.12.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows