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

92,728/- Proprietor of M/s Vadachi 80,31,784/- Products, Jamnagar 7 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

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

92,728/- Proprietor of M/s Vadachi 80,31,784/- Products, Jamnagar 7 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

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

92,728/-\nProprietor of M/s Vadachi\n80,31,784/-\nProducts, Jamnagar\n7\n9\nJenul Abedin Ebrahim Darjada,\nAuthorised person of M/s Sanjari\n72,40,405/-\n8,94,914/-\nPress Products, Jamnagar\n8\n10\nVishalkumarHasumkhbhai\n7,72,846/-\nRabadiya, Proprietor of M/s M.Κ.\n62,52,799/-\nEnterprise, Jamnagar\n==End of OCR for page 16==\nITA Nos. 111-113/Rjt/2024A.Ys

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT

section 132A, then, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall\napply as if such books of account, other documents or assets which had been taken into custody from\nthe person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of\nsection 132A, had been found in the possession

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus cash credit and another addition on account of suppression of profit. If these two additions came from the same documents, then telescoping benefit should be provided to the assessee, therefore the learned CIT(A) has provided the telescoping benefit to the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows: “17.3 Another plea of the assessee

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

purchase of Gold Bar dtd. 25/12/1985 is bogus and to treat sale proceed of Gold Bar as income from undisclosed sources. Further, CITA)-NFAC observed that sale bill is for sale of gold bar, whereas as per Wealth Tax Return the items shown are gold ornaments and the Appellant did not file copy of Valuation Report at any stage

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.

purchase details, ledger accounts of various expenses etc., which were placed on records. The Books of Accounts along with bills and vouchers were produced by the assessee. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that the assessee has debited foreign commission expenses of Rs. 12,13,74,525/- to its Profit & Loss Account for AY 2012-13. Hence

PARI ANIL GANDHI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

92,595/- i.e. Total share transaction of Rs.49,74,295/-is treated as bogus and added to the total income as per the proviso of section 68 of the it Act it is totally wrong. Unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action

PARI ANIL GANDHI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

92,595/- i.e. Total share transaction of Rs.49,74,295/-is treated as bogus and added to the total income as per the proviso of section 68 of the it Act it is totally wrong. Unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

bogus long-term capital gain, exempt u/s 10(38) and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who allegedly received Rs.27,05,802/-, on the sale of shares of the said penny stock. Since the assessee had shown a long-term capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

bogus long-term capital gain, exempt u/s 10(38) and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who allegedly received Rs.27,05,802/-, on the sale of shares of the said penny stock. Since the assessee had shown a long-term capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147 of the Act, that is, reassessment was dropped by the assessing officer. In this regard, the detailed submission made by the assessee and the arguments made before the Ld. CIT(A), are reproduced below: “Simply relying upon the general modus operandi does not mean that all the transactions undertaken throughout the country by millions of subscribers are bogus

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

section 68 of the Act.\nReliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in\nthe case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212,\nthe relevant observation of the Mumbai Bench are as under:\n\"So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the\nassessee could

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

section 68 of the Act.\nReliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in\nthe case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212,\nthe relevant observation of the Mumbai Bench are as under:\n\"So merely because for the reasons that the purchaser parties were not traceable, the\nassessee could

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year, should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

purchase and sales made by him during the year under consideration is not sufficient to claim these unaccounted receipts as business receipts. Therefore, ld. PCIT observedthat excess stock found during the survey and admitted by the assessee, as its income earned during that year,should be treated, as deemed income in view of the provisions of section