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)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 also. Since the amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- has not been added to the total income u/s 68 of the Act, the same has resulted into under assessment of income to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. 4. During the assessment proceedings, as desired

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

unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs. 4) The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the AO were by AO has disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section

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

unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs. 4) The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the AO were by AO has disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section

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

unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs. 21 lakhs. 4) The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the AO were by AO has disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

cash credits stating: Provide name, address, PAN, Confirmation, contra a/c from all the persons who have contributed towards unsecured loans during the financial year. 10. We note that the appellant has furnished the details of Loan and confirmation of loan from Bhoomidev Credit Corporation Ltd.. The interest payable was worked out at 12,477/- and TDS

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

cash credits stating: Provide name, address, PAN, Confirmation, contra a/c from all the persons who have contributed towards unsecured loans during the financial year. 10. We note that the appellant has furnished the details of Loan and confirmation of loan from Bhoomidev Credit Corporation Ltd.. The interest payable was worked out at 12,477/- and TDS

SHAILESH AMRUTLAL KOTECHA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment in fixed assets 1,56,736/- (ii) On account of TDS difference 6,76,832/- (iii) On account of explained cash credit

SHAILESH AMRUTLAL KOTECHA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment in fixed assets 1,56,736/- (ii) On account of TDS difference 6,76,832/- (iii) On account of explained cash credit

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)

unexplained cash credit through the unsecured loans based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comments of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not furnish any explanation or submission to various notices issued by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings for proposing the disallowance in respect of unsecured loans received

SHRI DEEPAK INDRAKUMAR BHAGCHANDANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

unexplained cash credit u/s.69. 3.2 Addition of Rs.55,050/- towards commission and insurance income. On verification of 26AS data available on record in the case, it was gathered that the assessee had received a commission income of Rs.52,800/- from Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited and Insurance Commission income of Rs.2,250/- from Max New York Life Insurance on which Total

ACTIONWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.317/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Actionware India Pvt. Ltd. The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम 316, Sagar Arcade Rajkot. Gandal Road Vs. Opp: Union Bank Of India Rajkot 360 002 (Gujarat) Pan : Aacck 3445 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as the genuineness of the transaction is not proved. 3.In this case the assessment order has been passed without making due inquiry/verification.Hence, in terms of Explanation 2 to sec. 263, such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

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)

credit. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not been able to demonstrate the creditworthiness of the lenders before the assessing officer with sufficient documentary evidences particularly when the income declared by these lenders do no commensurate with the loans so advanced

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld CIT(A) filed a reconciliation statement justifying the difference observed by the AO for Rs.50,00,000/-. The copy of the reconciliation statement reads as under: Debit Credit

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

cash credit received by the assessee cannot be treated as genuine in the absence of necessary verification. However, the AO accepted the same without making proper inquiry and application of mind. Accordingly, the learned principal CIT set aside the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act and directed to make a fresh assessment after necessary

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

credit entries in\nundisclosed foreign account amounting to Rs. 1,04,01,000/-. In case of deemed\nrent of more than one properties reflected in the balance sheet amounting to\nRs.1,80,000/-, Rs. 61,182/ (Penalty amount) and disallowance of payment of\ncommission to Shri Rajesh Bhatt amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,01,970/-\n(penalty amount

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

Unexplained 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

M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Acit, Ltd., Vs. Gandhidham Circle Shed No.280/281, A Type, Gandhidham. Sector No.3, Ka Sez, Gandhinagar- Kutch वष" Ito, M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ward-2, Vs. Ltd., Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 0565 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, Ar. Revenue By : S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018

TDS u/s 194H of the Act and through banking channel. Therefore, the identity and genuineness of the commission expenses cannot be doubted. The non- response from the commission agent u/s 133(6) of the Act cannot be a ground for making the disallowance of the commission expenses. The assessee filed the income tax return, copies of the bills

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Cash transfer entries from one site to other site 11225000 duly reflected in books of accounts Annx.- B(i) Unexplained Entries NIL 11.1. Similarly, the assessee vide its letter dated 25-02-2013 addressing to the Assessing Officer explained the disclosure of additional income as follows: February 25, 2013. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Rajkot Sub: Disclosure