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

133(6) to give details of the purchasers like name, address, contact person, contact number, E- mail address etc and the person who were in touch with the said commission receiving parties. The Assessing Officer had also specifically asked these parties as to how they came in contact with the purchasing parties and whether they had traveled to countries outside

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SIYARAM METAL UDYOG PVT. LTD.,, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

purchase at Rs.72240 at 0.24% as against Rs. 18,06,014/- estimated by the A.O. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that

KETAN GORI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(10), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

6. In response to the notice of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee submitted its written submissions along with documentary evidences, which are reproduced by the ld. Pr. CIT in the revision order. The assessee submitted before the learned PCIT that revision proceeding are mere change of opinion and without bringing anything new on the record. During the assessment proceedings

NARANJI RAJARAM DAVE,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR , PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 822/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Naranji Rajaram Dave, Income Tax Officer, Wd -2(3), Vs. Porbandar-360575 17, 17 Naranji Rajaram Dave, Suttar Vada, Porbandar, Suttar Vada, Porbandar-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpd8823B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus. Further, in the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to the IDBI Bank, HDFC Bank, PCC Bank and also to various entities for calling information related to the cash deposit made by the assessee during the year under consideration. On the basis of the same, all the notices issued

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudas Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat-361001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.74/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) Khushaboo Jaykumar Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Wadi Main Road, Kaushal Nagar, Gujarat - 361110 स्थायी लेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / Pan/Gir.: Aefpv6723A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 19/06/2025 : 05/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) – 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [(In Short "Ld. Pr.Cit”] U/S. 263 Of The Act, Both Orders Dated 24.01.2025. 2. Since, These Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee For Same

bogus and have remained unverified. The AO should have verified such transactions in details particularly when the core reason of selection of case for assessment is to verify the geniuses of purchases. However, it is seen that AO allowed the claim of purchase without any verification. 6. In response to the Show cause notice issued

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)

bogus and have remained unverified. The AO should have verified such transactions in details particularly when the core reason of selection of case for assessment is to verify the geniuses of purchases. However, it is seen that AO allowed the claim of purchase without any verification.” 6. In response to the Show cause notice issued

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. ADITYA COKE PRIVATE LIMITED,, BHACHAU - KUTCH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 554/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Aditya Coke Private Limited, Circle-2, Vs. Survey No.14, Jamnagar Village Chopadva, Tal. Bhachai, Dist. Kutch, (Gujarat)

133(6) of the Act, the outstanding balance was of Rs. 28,30,93,924/- only. 5.3 Thus the AO in view of the above show caused the assessee why the amount outstanding from the above 4 parties and difference amount with Kabra Brotehr should not be added back to the total income. 5.4 The assessee in response submitted that

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 142(1) of the Act, which is placed on Paper Book (PB) Page no.10. In response to this notice, the assessee submitted all the documents and evidences, vide assessee’s reply dated 31.8.2023 wherein the assessee submitted the bill of lading, bill of entry and invoices, Bank statement, before the assessing officer. Apart from this, the assessee has also

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act. 10. The ld Counsel further submitted that all the evidences are third- party evidences and it satisfy the requirement of the section 10(38) of the Act and without disproving the evidence the law does not empower the assessing officer without bringing anything on record to disbelieve the long term capital gain which

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) of the Act. On its choosing not to exercise such powers, it was erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to make addition of a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-, despite such cogent evidences having been put-forth by the assessee. Both the authorities have concurrently held the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) of the Act. On its choosing not to exercise such powers, it was erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to make addition of a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-, despite such cogent evidences having been put-forth by the assessee. Both the authorities have concurrently held the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) of the Act. On its choosing not to exercise such powers, it was erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to make addition of a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-, despite such cogent evidences having been put-forth by the assessee. Both the authorities have concurrently held the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) of the Act. On its choosing not to exercise such powers, it was erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to make addition of a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-, despite such cogent evidences having been put-forth by the assessee. Both the authorities have concurrently held the issue in favour of the assessee and moreover

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

purchasers and the expenses incurred on such visits have been claimed as business expenses. As per the AO thus the salary is paid to the employees for looking after the scraps and hence the commission on the same is not justifiable. The case laws as cited by the AR of the appellant in his submission are not applicable

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

bogus and were likely used to accommodate unaccounted money. Thus, purchases from these entities should have been disallowed and treated, as unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

bogus and were likely used to accommodate unaccounted money. Thus, purchases from these entities should have been disallowed and treated, as unexplained expenditure u/s 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

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

133\n6,70,202 6,70,202 1,24,38,865\nUpto\n1,24,38,865\n2,03,785\n2,03,785\n5,74,802 5,74,802 1,20,67,848\n08.11.16\nTOTAL\n30,34,780 61,45,732 91,80,512\n46,49,944 46,49,944\nAs may be seen from the above summary of month- wise

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

133\n6,70,202 6,70,202 1,24,38,865\nUpto\n08.11.16\n1,24,38,865\n2,03,785\n2,03,785\n5,74,802 5,74,802 1,20,67,848\nTOTAL\n30,34,780 61,45,732 91,80,512\n46,49,944 46,49,944\nAs may be seen from the above summary of month- wise