KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

bogus purchases and, moreover, values of opening stock/closing stock were not open for verification, authorities below were justified in rejecting books of account and making addition to assessee's income by adopting higher GP rate. 6.22 Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of JCIT Vs System Controls & Transformers (P.) Ltd. (2018) (89 taxmann.com 96 (Delhi Trib.) has upheld that

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

bogus purchases and, moreover, values of opening stock/closing stock were not open for verification, authorities below were justified in rejecting books of account and making addition to assessee's income by adopting higher GP rate. 6.22 Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of JCIT Vs System Controls & Transformers (P.) Ltd. (2018) (89 taxmann.com 96 (Delhi Trib.) has upheld that

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

justice settled\nby the Apex Court.\n5. The Ld. NFAC Alleged in its impugned Order that on appellant's request, Notice\nunder section 250 was issued scheduling the hearing through Video Conferencing on\n09.02.2024 at 3.00 PM, However, there was no response from the appellant to the\nsaid opportunitygranted for hearing which is far from truth and facts

OSWAL PETROCHEM,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans,\nunaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc. The assessing officer noted\nthat seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents\nand the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji\nKangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name\nof the assessee on various dates during

CHAMPALAL COMPANY,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans,\nunaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc. The assessing officer noted\nthat seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents\nand the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji\nKangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name\nof the assessee on various dates during

PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.102/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Flat No.1, Prabhudeep Apartment Income Tax, Jamanagar. Air Force-2 Road Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Agzpv6946P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

bogus purchases, held as reasonable. Hence, the order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 19. According to us, the present order of AO passed u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2022 of the Act cannot be termed as erroneous since enquiry was, in fact, carried out by him on the issue on which

NARENDRAKUMAR BHANWERLAL NIMBAVAT HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans, unaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc.The assessing officer noted that seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents and the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji Kangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name of the assessee on various dates during

MAHAVIR IMPEX,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans, unaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc.The assessing officer noted that seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents and the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji Kangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name of the assessee on various dates during

SHRI RAMJI HAMIR VIRDA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans, unaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc.The assessing officer noted that seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents and the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji Kangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name of the assessee on various dates during

OSWAL AGRICOMM PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans, unaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc.The assessing officer noted that seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents and the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji Kangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name of the assessee on various dates during

RISHABH STEEL SUPPLIER,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans, unaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc.The assessing officer noted that seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents and the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji Kangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name of the assessee on various dates during

PRIYANSI CORPORATION,DIST RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus purchases, unaccounted cash loans,\nunaccounted payments, unaccounted receipts etc. The assessing officer noted\nthat seized documents containing name of the assessee are speaking documents\nand the seized page nos. A4-45, A8-180 are the invoices raised by Shamji\nKangad& Co. (entity owned by the member of Neelkangh Group) in the name\nof the assessee on various dates during

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM vs. KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 594/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Tax, Bbz-N-108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026

nature of transaction, pattern of documentation, and the treatment by the AO are identical for A.Ys. 2017-18 and 2018-19. In fact, the AO in both years made an addition of 12.5% on the very same premise i.e., bogus purchases which has already been struck down by the appellate authority. Disregarding a binding appellate precedent, particularly in the appellant

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

bogus entries of name-lenders, has failed to conduct verifications/inquiries that should have been done and accepted the share capital as well as the unsecured loans as genuine.\n8. The Ld.PCIT noticed that trade payables of Rs. 11,61,51,118/-,have been reported as on 31/03/2016. In this regard, the AO vide notice dated 18/07/2018

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice, though the assessee has specifically prayed to grant an opportunity of heard and the same was not granted. Thus, the order is passed under the gross violation of maxim Audi Alteram Partem read with article 14 of the constitution and therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. 2. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well

KHUSHBOO JAYKUMAR VITHLANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased, Screen shot reflecting return filing frequency of the supplier and proof that transaction is reported in 2A of the appellant which subsequently proved that suppliers have filed their GSTR-1 and also paid tax in their GSTR-3B. Ld. PCIT has considered no value of all this documentary evidences and merely stated that suppliers are bogus. 6. Based

JAY PRABHUDAS VITHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

purchased,\nScreen shot reflecting return filing frequency of the supplier and proof that\ntransaction is reported in 2A of the appellant which subsequently proved that\nsuppliers have filed their GSTR-1 and also paid tax in their GSTR-3B. Ld. PCIT\nhas considered no value of all this documentary evidences and merely stated that\nsuppliers are bogus.\n6. Based

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Assessee. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Assessee, as follows: (i) The order passed by the Ld. Fassessing officer as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee as follows: (i) Ground No.1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account