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 and were likely used to accommodate unaccounted money. Thus, purchases from these entities should have been disallowed and treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

CORUS VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus companies, since the same would amount to double taxation. Further, on perusal of the order passed by ld. PCIT, it is seen that the ld. PCIT has not established as to how the repayment of loans falls u/s. 69C of the Act when the assessee has not claimed the same as expenditure and also when the source of such

SUN EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed\nincome u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.\nHowever, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned\nPCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper\ninquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

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

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

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

69C 2 143999517 Unexplained / unaccounted income 3 900000 Profits chargeable to tax as per Section 41(1) Total 17,39,72,425 Relevant Provision of the Income-tax Act 31. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition, observing as follows: “5.13 Having

BHARATKUMAR KALYANJIBHAI BHINDI,JUNAGADH vs. PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

bogus\nexpenses to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-, ought to have taxed, as deemed\nincome u/s 69C of the Act, and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.\nHowever, the assessing officer failed to do the same. Therefore, learned\nPCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper\ninquiry and investigation, which is erroneous

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

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

69C r.w.s. of the Act.\n3.5 The above peculiarities of the purchases lead to conclusion that the\ntransaction of purchases are bogus and have remained unverified. The AO\nshould have verified such transactions in details particularly when the\ncore reason of selection of case for assessment is to verify the geniuses of\npurchases. However, it is seen that AO allowed