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

TDS Rs.5,17,98,259/-. This issue is in ITA\nNo.612/RJT/2024, only.\n(3) Row expenses, under the direct expenses Rs.1,36,50,985/-, assessee had\ntreated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital\nexpenditure. This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only.\n27. Now we shall take these issues one by one as follows. The first

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

TDS u/s. 194C has been duly deducted on all such charges paid to Shiv Shipping and other handling agents. In support of its claim, the appellant has also furnished the copy of sample agreement entered into with the above said handling agents. 36. Further, the appellant has also furnished the summary of the aforesaid agreements pertaining to three different

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

TDS u/s. 194C has been duly deducted on all such charges paid to Shiv Shipping and other handling agents. In support of its claim, the appellant has also furnished the copy of sample agreement entered into with the above said handling agents. 36. Further, the appellant has also furnished the summary of the aforesaid agreements pertaining to three different

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

TDS u/s. 194C has been duly deducted on all such charges paid to Shiv Shipping and other handling agents. In support of its claim, the appellant has also furnished the copy of sample agreement entered into with the above said handling agents. 36. Further, the appellant has also furnished the summary of the aforesaid agreements pertaining to three different

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

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

TDS u/s. 194C has been duly deducted on all such charges paid to Shiv Shipping and other handling agents. In support of its claim, the appellant has also furnished the copy of sample agreement entered into with the above said handling agents. 36. Further, the appellant has also furnished the summary of the aforesaid agreements pertaining to three different

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKLAL KHIMJI MODI,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the aforesaid issues are to restored to the file of Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69C of the Act with the following observations:- “7.1 So far as addition of direct & indirect expenses of Rs.48,18,072/- is concerned, the AO vide order u/s,154 dtd. 31-01-2011 has reduced the addition to Rs.29,84,412/-. Thus the total addition remains at Rs. 29,84,412/-. On going to the comparable chart

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS Rs.5,17,98,259/-. This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. (3) Row expenses, under the direct expenses Rs.1,36,50,985/-, assessee had treated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital expenditure.This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. 27. Now we shall take these issues one by one as follows. The first issue raised

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS Rs.5,17,98,259/-. This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. (3) Row expenses, under the direct expenses Rs.1,36,50,985/-, assessee had treated revenue expenditure, however, as per Ld. PCIT it should be capital expenditure.This issue is in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, only. 27. Now we shall take these issues one by one as follows. The first issue raised

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)

section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of difference of purchases shown in Form 26AS and in Profit & Loss account. 5. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and had filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2022- 23, on 06.08.2022, declaring total taxable income

ALTAF AYOOBBHAI VEHVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

69C r.w.s. 155BBE of the Act. The ld.PCIT observed that assessing officer failed to conduct any verification or inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of these transactions, despite it being the primary reason for scrutiny selection. 6. Considering the above facts, the Ld. PCIT issued show -cause notice to the assessee, u/s 263 of the Act, dated 11.12.2024, which is reproduced

JABIR AYOOB VAHEVARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

69C r.w.s. 155BBE of the Act. The ld.PCIT observed that assessing officer failed to conduct any verification or inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of these transactions, despite it being the primary reason for scrutiny selection. 6. Considering the above facts, the Ld. PCIT issued show -cause notice to the assessee, u/s 263 of the Act, dated 11.12.2024, which is reproduced

H J ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

69C of the Act. An assessment order vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2016 assessed the total income at Rs. 1,06,36,260/- as against originally assessed income of Rs. 58,28,760/- 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of AO dated 16.12.2016 before the Ld.CIT (A) and confirmed the addition with

DAWN CHEMICALS,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

69C of the Act. Thus, the AO vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2016 assessed the Total income at 32,08,120/-. 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) dated 21/03/2024. That the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal with following remarks; “Further, appellant challenged reopening