VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

68 2. 18,83,64,331/- Unexplained sundry Section not creditors mentioned by the A.O. 3. 6,00,56,842/- 5% of purchase Section not mentioned by the A.O. 4. 1,34,27,150/- Bogus

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus loss was to be deleted\"\n(iii).Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel,[2024] 162 taxmann.com 892 (Gujarat)\n“Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company was\nsuspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10(38), in absence of\nany material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sale of said shares

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)

bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the assessee assessee had furnished evidence to show

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessee in replay to ACIT vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain notice submitted detail replay along with documentary evidence comprising served Annexures, in order to establishing the genuineness of the purchase transactions. Even after producing concrete documents, the Ld. AO proceed to rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus loss was to be deleted\"\n(iii).Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel,[2024] 162 taxmann.com 892 (Gujarat)\n“Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company was\nsuspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10(38), in absence of\nany material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sale of said shares

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

purchase of Plant & Machinery.\nThis credit amount requires to be added u/s 68 being unaccounted money\nintroduced in the books of account in the garb of cash sales. It is quite\nevident from the details available on record that the then assessing officer\nfailed to examine this issue and failed to make required addition by\ncarrying out proper investigation

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)

bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the assessee assessee had furnished evidence to show

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

bogus.\n23. We note that Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree\nSanand Textile Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT while deleting the addition made\nby the A.O. under section 68 of the Act, on account of cash deposit has\nobserved as under:\n\"9.5 From the above, we note that the provisions of section 68

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

bogus.\n23. We note that Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree\nSanand Textile Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT while deleting the addition made\nby the A.O. under section 68 of the Act, on account of cash deposit has\nobserved as under:\n\"9.5 From the above, we note that the provisions of section 68

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)

bogus. 17. We note that there are three conditions to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act viz: (i) Shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheque-For that the copy of bank statements reflecting the purchase amount along with the copy of cheque is placed on records, (ii) Shares were held in demat account for more than 12 months

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

section 68 of the Act is as under:\n\"Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interest), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

purchasers could not made balance\npayments as a condition of satakhat. Satakhat has been cancelled on\n25.02.2013 and 27.02.2013 as per Cancellation of Satakhat and paid amounts\nby bearer cheques to each person. A Xerox copy of cancellation of satakhat\ndocuments and details of payments has been submitted with my previous\nsubmission.\n(vi) There are three nature of evidence

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

purchasers could not made balance payments as a condition of satakhat. Satakhat has been cancelled on 25.02.2013 and 27.02.2013 as per Cancellation of Satakhat and paid amounts by bearer cheques to each person. A Xerox copy of cancellation of satakhat documents and details of payments has been submitted with my previous submission. (vi) There are three nature of evidence lead

M/S. BABJI OIL MILL PVT. LTD.,,RANEKPAR, TAL. WAKANER, DIST. MORBI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member M/s. Babji Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd., 8- (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase. The addition needs deletion. 4. Taking into consideration the legal, statutory, factual, accounting and administrative aspects, no addition amounting to Rs. 22,70,0007- and Rs. 3,17,87,900/- ought to have been confirmed. The addition needs deletion. 5. Without prejudice, the assessment made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 6. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

purchase and sale of\nsaid shares was bogus, Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of\nsale proceeds of shares under section 68

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

PRITIBEN JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

bogus. 17. We note that there are three conditions to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act viz: (i) Shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheque-For that the copy of bank statements reflecting the purchase amount along with the copy of cheque is placed on records, (ii) Shares were held in demat account for more than 12 months

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

68,936/-, and he agreed to it. ITA Nos.111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 15 19.6 I find that during investigations of the case, statements of various buyers (Noticee Nos. 3 to 10) were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and each of the said buyer has categorically admitted that they had received

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

68,936/-, and he agreed to it. ITA Nos.111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 15 19.6 I find that during investigations of the case, statements of various buyers (Noticee Nos. 3 to 10) were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and each of the said buyer has categorically admitted that they had received