THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

bogus purchases, that is, cash received from the suppliers against purchase claimed in the books of account. ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021 (AY : 2019-20) with CO No.05/RJT/2022 17 23. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee submitted that the statement of Shri Bhupendra Balubhai Patel recorded u/s 133A

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

bogus purchases, that is, cash received from the suppliers against purchase claimed in the books of account. ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021 (AY : 2019-20) with CO No.05/RJT/2022 17 23. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee submitted that the statement of Shri Bhupendra Balubhai Patel recorded u/s 133A

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

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO,TALALA, JUNAGADH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, ground no.2(e ) raised by the assessee, is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.608/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishna Construction Co. The Dcit, Cir.1(1) बनाम Below Dr.Antalas Hospital Rajkot. Station Road, Talala (Gir) Vs. Junagadh. Pan : Aaifk 8897 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

bogus expenditure, therefore, expenditure of Rs.1,30,27,822/- was disallowed u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being not expended wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Krishna Construction Co Vs. DCIT 4 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer (assessing officer), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed

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)

purchase (vide Pb. 19 to 27), (v) ITR and computation of income of AY.2011-12 (vide PB. 28 to 30), (vi) Notice dated 07.04.2011 issued by BSE about subdivision of the shares from one share into 10 shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (vii) Contract note & ledger reflecting sale of shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (viii) Bank statements reflecting sale

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

purchase of raw material and related manufacturing expenditure, is found to be in order; hence sustained. Accordingly, these Grounds are dismissed.” 16. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that impugned order was passed by Ld.CIT(A) without considering the facts and circumstances

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

purchase of raw material and related manufacturing expenditure, is found to be in order; hence sustained. Accordingly, these Grounds are dismissed.” 16. Further aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that impugned order was passed by Ld.CIT(A) without considering the facts and circumstances

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

purchase (vide Pb. 19 to 27), (v) ITR and computation of income of AY.2011-12 (vide PB. 28 to 30), (vi) Notice dated 07.04.2011 issued by BSE about subdivision of the shares from one share into 10 shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (vii) Contract note & ledger reflecting sale of shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (viii) Bank statements reflecting sale

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)

28,81,890/- under section 68 of the Act, based on the documents placed on record, the assessing officer has not recorded any reason as to why the addition can be made under section 68 of the Act and on what reasons and why the evidences placed on record which are the third- party evidences are not considered. The assessing

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)

purchase (vide Pb. 19 to 27), (v) ITR and computation of income of AY.2011-12 (vide PB. 28 to 30), (vi) Notice dated 07.04.2011 issued by BSE about subdivision of the shares from one share into 10 shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (vii) Contract note & ledger reflecting sale of shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (viii) Bank statements reflecting sale

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,93,37,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating certain percentage on accounted sales is unwarranted and also adoption of gross profit rate on suppressed sales is bad in law as if at all the profit was to be estimated, only net profit could have been estimated