THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

47,623.00 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged in the business of processing & exports of marine products. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad debts of Rs. 2,10,17,075/- which represented the advances written off. As such these advances written off were never booked as income

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

47,623.00 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged in the business of processing & exports of marine products. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad debts of Rs. 2,10,17,075/- which represented the advances written off. As such these advances written off were never booked as income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that the provisions referred to by the assessee are in a Chapter related to "Capital Gains," whereas an approved scheme of amalgamation operates by law, as recognized

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

47,977/- 2. Interest to partners Rs. 9,85,160/- The Book Profit was therefore Rs. 20162589/-, the AO has also noted the same in his assessment order in his computation on page 12 of the order. The AO has not disbelieved the other entries of P&L account. His grievance has arisen due to declared net profit being much

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT vs. LAJVANTIBEN RAJABHAI HINDUJA, RAJKOT

vi)The agricultural land is in dispute and actual sales are not executed or possession is not handed over, it cannot be treated as transfer u/s 2(14)(v) and hence no capital gain is attracted. 11. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed written submission alongwith documentary evidences, which were already submitted before the assessing officer

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

vi. The “Angadiya” is a very common term in Gujarat. Another common term related to monetary transactions is “shroff.” While “Angadiya services” and “shroff services” are comparatively accounted transactions, the enforcement agencies also come across the term ‘hawala’ which indicates a complete unaccounted transaction of cash. The concern related to enforcement agencies is the veil of Angadiya and shroff

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

section 68 of the Act." However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, Page | 14 ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 to 50 in Paper Book No. III have been considered by us. In our humble understanding nowhere of the entire set of above documents gives any indication that the funds transferred from HSBC, Geneva to the son’s accounts lying with HSBC Dubai and India belongs to the assessee. These documents do not speak that the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 to 50 in Paper Book No. III have been considered by us. In our humble understanding nowhere of the entire set of above documents gives any indication that the funds transferred from HSBC, Geneva to the son’s accounts lying with HSBC Dubai and India belongs to the assessee. These documents do not speak that the assessee

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 to 50 in Paper Book No. III have been considered by us. In our humble understanding nowhere of the entire set of above documents gives any indication that the funds transferred from HSBC, Geneva to the son’s accounts lying with HSBC Dubai and India belongs to the assessee. These documents do not speak that the assessee

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47 to 50 in Paper Book No. III have been considered by us. In our humble understanding nowhere of the entire set of above documents gives any indication that the funds transferred from HSBC, Geneva to the son’s accounts lying with HSBC Dubai and India belongs to the assessee. These documents do not speak that the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAGJIVAN RANCHHODBHAI SAKHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue, are dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 34,95,274/-, Other income of Rs. 66,940/- and deduction as per Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,91,000/-. On 27-09-2021, the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 7,29,10,595/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI JAGJIVAN RANCHHODBHAI SAKHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue, are dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 34,95,274/-, Other income of Rs. 66,940/- and deduction as per Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,91,000/-. On 27-09-2021, the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 7,29,10,595/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

vi) The learned CIT(A)’s order in the case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 accepting in principle the assessee’s method of computation of profits from eligible business for the purpose of creating special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act (paper-book page Nos. 20 – 34). 7. It was also pointed out that Department

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S RISHI KIRAN LOGISTICS P. LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 14A of the Act on the alleged ground that appellant failed to prove one-to-one nexus from bank account that investment has been done entirely from its own funds. (vi) Alleged that assessee (i) paid excessive terminal handling charges to Shreeji Power and Insulators Pvt. Ltd. [SPIPL] and (ii) paid for the quantities which have not been used