THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. SMT. GRACY KUTHUKMAL THOMAS,, VERAVAL

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

bogus or incorrect. Assessing Officer has only raised a suspicion that the purchase are from unregistered dealers therefore they may be incorrect. Assessing Officer has not brought out any evidence by examining the suppliers of goods to reach any conclusion to reject the books of accounts. 4.2 Appellant has not accounted for the body parts of fish, which are removed

THE ITO, WARD-3(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RAJESH GULABRAI SHAYANI,, JAM-KHAMBHALIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and law by deleting the addition of Rs. 10,08,76,757/-made by the AO on account of unexplained purchase

SHRI RAJESH KARSHANBHAI VEKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WD-2(1)(5), RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

purchase of new Verna car. (iii) Disallowing Rs.66,087/-& Rs.7,06,358/- being 10% of administrative expenses & groundnut kharajat expenses respectively on alleged ground that no proper check over the expenses has been made by the appellant. The assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act on 26/03/2015 and net total income assessed on Rs.98,02,210/- against the relevant

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

bogus long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

bogus long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

bogus long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

bogus long term capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA NO. 449 & 469/RJT/2025 Sapna Nainesh Jatania, 2. Both these appeals, filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 55 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay of both the appeals, are same

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA NO. 449 & 469/RJT/2025 Sapna Nainesh Jatania, 2. Both these appeals, filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 55 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay of both the appeals, are same

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the ground raised by the assessee in the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Rjt/2014 With C.O.No.4/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S.Krishna Developers, Circle-1, Business Centre, Vs. Junagadh. 1St Floor, Bus Station Road, Lal Bahadur Society, Junagadh.

144.]” 7.3 From the preceding discussion, we note that the AO has rejected the books of accounts due to certain reasons which have been elaborated in detail in the preceding paragraph. Now we evaluate the reasons for the rejection of the books of accounts by the AO one by one in the manner as detailed below

VITARAG EXPORT INDUSTRIES,JUNAGADH ROAD vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, ground No.5 raised by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Vitrang Export Industries, Vs. The Ito, Junagadh Road, Near Railway Ward – 2(1)(1), Crossing, Dhoraji, Gujarat - 360140 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfv2407M (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 gms of seed content was available. Therefore, based on these facts, the ld CIT (A) accepted the method adopted by the assessing officer and therefore, confirmed the addition of Rs.1,51,58,520/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 10. Shri D. M. Rindani, the Learned Counsel

JITENDRABHAI DEVAJIBHAI BODAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted”

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

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 10.09.2021 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. Jitendrabhai D. Bodar 2 The order of the learned AO in so far as he assessed the total income

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)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

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)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

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)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

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

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)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

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)

144 of the Act. This aspect has completely been overlooked by the assessing officer while making the addition. 11. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that it is a mystery as to how the assessing officer has arrived at the figure of "reasonable loss at 10% particularly when even the independent experts have opined that the washing/manufacturing loss is likely

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

144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held\nthat trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied\nsubsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68 of the Act.\nReliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in\nthe case of ITO vs. Surana Traders