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 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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

NATHABHAI PARSANA (LR. GANESHBHAI PARSANA),RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIR -2(1), RAJKOT

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

capital gains, and the same was not considered by the assessing officer. Out of opening cash balance, and out of the proceeds of LTCG, the assessee had deposited

SHRI VIJAY JAMNADAS VINCHHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains at Rs. 8,22,816/-. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 1,69,010/- being a cash deposits

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

cash deposit before the assessing officer. Hence, assessing officer has not examined this fact, whether the bank was submitting its report to the RBI on day-to-day basis during the demonetization period. 25. Learned DR for the revenue argued about the third issue stating that the Assessee- Bank had made investment in unquoted Bond, which can earn exempt income

SHRI RAVI PARSOTAMBHAI ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 434/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Jetpur – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Amnpa7007Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

cash deposited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant submits that the books of its proprietary conce of its proprietary concern M/s.Jay Ambe Textile are audited u/s.44AB and the audit rn M/s.Jay Ambe Textile are audited u/s.44AB and the audit report has been filed within the prescribed time. report has been filed within the prescribed time

SHRI JIGAR JAGDISH DOSHI,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHUJ-KUTCH, BHUJ-KUTCH

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

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

capital gains. The return of income was filed on 13-03- 2014 declaring total income of " 2,05,850/-for the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made cash deposits