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

bogus. 19.About the second issue, which is regarding applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, in respect of these commission payments, the ld. CIT(A) noted that there is no doubt that all these foreign agents are not residents and are not having business connection in India. There is also no doubt that they have rendered services

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

9. The ld. Counsel further submitted that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessing officer made the addition, at the rate of 12.50% treating the bogus purchases, which is not acceptable. In the assessee`s case none of the characteristics of bogus purchase are present, as the assessee has furnished, before the assessing officer, the extensive documentary evidence

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 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06- Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus Accordingly, he made disallowance Tribunal found that though

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 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06- Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus Accordingly, he made disallowance Tribunal found that though

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. However, learned PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and held that the assessment order was passed without making inquiries or 3 Shree N. H. Enterprises vs. PCIT verification which should have been made; therefore, learned PCIT

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

section 147 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in part being 25% of bogus purchases instead of deleting the same in entirety

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

9. It was also submitted that without prejudice to our submission that our entire purchases are genuine, but even if it is assumed there is deficiencies, in that case also entire purchases cannot be disallowed, since sales is accepted and not disturbed. In such as case at most profit embedded in purchase can be added to income. 10.Your honour

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)

section 147 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. I.T.A No. 258/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 6 M/s. Premji Valji & Sons (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 5. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made

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

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

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)

bogus liabilities as advance from debtor of " 1,34,27,150/- under section 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act @ tax rate of 60%. However, the AO erred in facts and in law by applying the normal rate of tax as opposed to the higher tax rate of 60% and therefore, the assessment order passed

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 purchase of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Alpha Entech (Guj) and 52,04,130/- from Anuradha Oil, Mumbai, totaling to Rs. 54,04,130/-. 7.In this regard, the reply was submitted by assessee that the above transaction is not related to M/s. Expert Particle Board. ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021

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 purchase of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Alpha Entech (Guj) and 52,04,130/- from Anuradha Oil, Mumbai, totaling to Rs. 54,04,130/-. 7.In this regard, the reply was submitted by assessee that the above transaction is not related to M/s. Expert Particle Board. ACIT Vs. Expert Particle Board and Others ITA No.139 /RJT/2021 and 142/RJT/2021

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

section 10(38) of The Act. Kiran Kothari Vs ITO [ITA 443/Kol/2017] "we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form PARTMENT of bills. contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. Neither these evidences were

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)

9. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 is bad in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition originally made by merely relying on concept of PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY and the judgements based on the same. In such a manner, every gain earned

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer, बनाम / National Faceless Assessment Plot No..4345, Gidc, Phase- Vs. Centre, Delhi/Dcit, Circle-3, Iii, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361008 स्थायी लेखा सं/. जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6122 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order Captioned Three Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To

9 Jenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada, Authorised person of M/s Sanjari 72,40,405/- 8,94,914/- Press Products, Jamnagar 8 10 VishalkumarHasumkhbhai 7,72,846/- Rabadiya, Proprietor of M/s M.Κ. 62,52,799/- Enterprise, Jamnagar ==End of OCR for page 16== ITA Nos. 111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 17 6.12 In view

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

9 Jenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada, Authorised person of M/s Sanjari 72,40,405/- 8,94,914/- Press Products, Jamnagar 8 10 VishalkumarHasumkhbhai 7,72,846/- Rabadiya, Proprietor of M/s M.K. 62,52,799/- Enterprise, Jamnagar ITA Nos.111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 17 6.12 In view of the above, I find that the AO has made

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

9 Jenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada, Authorised person of M/s Sanjari 72,40,405/- 8,94,914/- Press Products, Jamnagar 8 10 VishalkumarHasumkhbhai 7,72,846/- Rabadiya, Proprietor of M/s M.K. 62,52,799/- Enterprise, Jamnagar ITA Nos.111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys. 13-14 to 15-16 M/s KrupaluMettalsPvt. Ltd. 17 6.12 In view of the above, I find that the AO has made

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. ADITYA COKE PRIVATE LIMITED,, BHACHAU - KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 554/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Aditya Coke Private Limited, Circle-2, Vs. Survey No.14, Jamnagar Village Chopadva, Tal. Bhachai, Dist. Kutch, (Gujarat)

section 41(1) of the Act was justified in law. 10.5 Coming to the facts of the present case, we note that the assessee itself has admitted during the assessment proceedings that it is not approaching to the creditors namely M/s Khodiyar Enerprise, Krishna Enterprise, Karan Enterprise and A.Y. 2012-13 8 SK Corporation as it is reluctant to make