THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S. RANG CERA COAT, , MORBI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Rang Cera Coat, Ward-4, 8-A, National Highway, Morbi Morbi Pan :Aalfr 1616 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023

Section 131 of the Act had evidentiary value. The learned CIT(A) was convinced with the explanation of the assessee that the entire purchases could not be disallowed as being bogus noting the fact that being a trader and the sales having not been doubted, there was no question of corresponding purchases in relation to the said sales having

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since I.T.A Nos. 206 & 207/Rjt/2022 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. M/s. Dhruv Craft Mill Pvt. Ltd. identical issue of bogus purchase

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since I.T.A Nos. 206 & 207/Rjt/2022 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. M/s. Dhruv Craft Mill Pvt. Ltd. identical issue of bogus purchase

SHREE N H ENTERPRISES,RAJKOT vs. PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 227/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree N. H. Enterprises बनाम/ Pcit-1, D-101, Golden Portico Apartment, Dr. Income Tax Office, Vs. Madhapar Circle, Morbi Road, Rajkot- Rajkot-360007 360007 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Adlfs7019K "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (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) सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 20/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2021-22 on 14.03.2022, declaring total income of Rs.59,030/-. Thereafter, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny by the CASS to verify the purchases from various parties who are either

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant, Judic Member आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.257 & 223/Rjt/2022 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S Premji Valji & Sons D.C.I.T, (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-2(1), “Kuvarjibhai Tower” Rakot. Palace Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaccp2555N

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming that the purchases from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. were bogus and making an addition of 25% of the purchases.” 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 of its appeal has challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The necessary facts of the case are that

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. SONPAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, such income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. Accordingly, it is not taxable in India. For that reliance is placed on the following judgements of the Hon`ble Supreme Court. (i)CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC): Commission earned by non- resident agents for services

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 purchase and we specifically oppose your this allegation, Our complete Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi ITA No.102 /RJT/2025 12 purchase made by us is duly accepted by GST department for which we have attached herewith chart in which it was specifically highlighted that our transaction was in between period where GST number was regular. 2. Further your honour may kindly appreciate

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming that the purchases from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. were bogus and making an addition of 25% of the purchases.” 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 of its appeal has challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 3.1 The necessary facts of the case are that

ITO WARD 3(1)(4), RAJKOT-STATION- AMRELI, AMRELI, GUJARAT vs. AVADH AGRI EXPORTS, AMRELI, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

2) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, such income is not deemed to accrue or arise in India. Accordingly, it is not taxable in India. For that reliance is placed on the following judgements of the Hon`ble Supreme Court. (i)CIT v. Toshoku Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 525 (SC): Commission earned by nonresident agents for services rendered

M/S. R M TRADELINK,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases and made addition of " 76,86,510/- disallowing 30% of the purchase of " 2,53,99,953/- since no TCS was collected on the same. However, as per the Principal CIT, the entire purchase amounting to " 2,53,99,953/- should have been treated as un-expenditure in the nature of unverifiable purchases and the total amount

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

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)

section 40A(2)(b) and hence the assessing officer's action of comparing the purchase price and holding that the purchases from one of them is at inflated rate vis-à-vis those from other, is without any base, particularly when there is no allegation of sham or bogus

M/S PREMJI VALJI & SONS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner Of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan: Aacfp7696K

section 285BA of the Act, Rule 114B) and address of purchases 3. Also provide monthly VAT returns from April to December, asked in statutory notice. The reply made by the assessee dated 05-11-2019 Sub: Notice U/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 1. Please refer to your above notice dated 24.10.2019. Please find enclosed the following details

SMT. GRACY KUTHUMKAL THOMAS,,VERAVAL vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH RANGE-1,, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, the AO formed an opinion that books of accounts of the assessee deserves to be rejected and her income is to be estimated according to the best judgment of the AO. Basically, the ld.AO has assigned four reasons for harbouring such belief

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

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, the AO formed an opinion that books of accounts of the assessee deserves to be rejected and her income is to be estimated according to the best judgment of the AO. Basically, the ld.AO has assigned four reasons for harbouring such belief

GLOBAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Global Extrusions Private Limited. Vs. Pcit Jamnagar, Ca Govind Sonecha Taranjali Building, “S&A House”, Near Golden City, Jamnagar 361008 80Ft Road, Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section Police Headquarters, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm4319E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. (Cit)Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025

2. The learned PCIT has erred in law vide para 7 and 8 of his Order by treating the purchase made from Ankit Metals, as Bogus Purchase and rendering the said purchase transactions to be unexplained. 3. The learned PCIT has erred in law vide para 9 and 10 of his Order by invoking Section