SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

cash deposits. The\nlearned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not deleting the impugned\naddition on merits.\n5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making the\naddition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted income. The learned\nCIT(A) has erred

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak balance in the\nbank account, not giving credit/ benefit of telescopic effect of intangible addition and\nnot considering decision relied upon by the assessee etc. The Learned

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak balance in the\nbank account, not giving credit/ benefit of telescopic effect of intangible addition and\nnot considering decision relied upon by the assessee etc. The Learned

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak balance in the\nbank account, not giving credit/ benefit of telescopic effect of intangible addition and\nnot considering decision relied upon by the assessee etc. The Learned

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A), directed the assessing\nofficer to make the addition as per consolidated peak, (not individual, bank

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A), directed the assessing\nofficer to make the addition as per consolidated peak, (not individual, bank

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

cash deposited in the bank account treating the assessee as a\nbusinessman. For example, in ITA No. 210/Rjt/2018, for assessment year 2008-09,\nassessing officer framed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and\nAssessing Officer made following addition:\n34\nH\nBHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\nDHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\ni.\nAddition an account of commission income

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

cash deposited in the bank account treating the assessee as a\nbusinessman. For example, in ITA No. 210/Rjt/2018, for assessment year 2008-09,\nassessing officer framed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and\nAssessing Officer made following addition:\n34\n1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\n2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\ni.\nAddition an account of commission income

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

Capital gain' would be impossible for the assessee in such cases.\nA larger bench of the Tribunal in case of Hico Enterprise vs. Commissioner of\nCustoms reported in 2005 (189) ELT (Tri.LB) following the maxim Lex non Cogit Ad\nimpossibilia held that the transferee of a quantity based license issued by the\nLicensing authority under the scheme of exemption notification

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

cash deposit made by the assessee in his bank account. Further, the assessee has been non-filer of income tax return. It is a well-settled principle of law that for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act, only a prima facie belief has to be formed by the assessing officer that the income has escaped assessment

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deposits in other accounts from which money has flown to the depositor and then to the appellant. The A.O. has not done anything to this effect and has stopped only at the first level. The A.O's inference is solely based on the non-production of the promoters, the statement of Shri Makadia conveying ignorance about the person incharge

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deposits in other accounts from which money has flown to the depositor and then to the appellant. The A.O. has not done anything to this effect and has stopped only at the first level. The A.O's inference is solely based on the non-production of the promoters, the statement of Shri Makadia conveying ignorance about the person incharge

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deposits in other accounts from which money has flown to the depositor and then to the appellant. The A.O. has not done anything to this effect and has stopped only at the first level. The A.O's inference is solely based on the non-production of the promoters, the statement of Shri Makadia conveying ignorance about the person incharge

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deposits in other accounts from which money has flown to the depositor and then to the appellant. The A.O. has not done anything to this effect and has stopped only at the first level. The A.O's inference is solely based on the non-production of the promoters, the statement of Shri Makadia conveying ignorance about the person incharge

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

capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even refuting the documentary evidence placed on records by the assessee, doubted the genuineness of share transactions simply on the basis

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

capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even refuting the documentary evidence placed on records by the assessee, doubted the genuineness of share transactions simply on the basis

MAVANI NILESH HARISHBHAI HUF,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

deposited cash in the demonetization period to the extent of Rs. 25,50,000/-, which is not getting reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18. The Ld. DR also pointed out that the assessee filed the income tax return (ITR), on August 31st, 2017, for assessment year

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of tax under Section 139 of the Act. Therefore, Section 139 cannot be confined only to the provisions of the Section 139(1), but it includes all the sub section of Section 139 of the Act. ….. ….we find that