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 is denied and assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs. 27,05,802/- as unexplained cash credit

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 is denied and assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs. 27,05,802/- as unexplained cash credit

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:

capital gain and other sources of income. The return was filed on 18.11.2009 declaring net income of Rs. 5, 40,010/-. The case was passed under Section 143(1) of the Act upon noticed that there is an unsecured loan of Rs. 65,73,083/- to KRN Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and a cash was deposited before issuing a cheque

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

unexplained 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

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

unexplained 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

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

unexplained 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

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

credit of intangible addition made in the year under\nconsideration, however, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the argument of the assessee, as the\nassessee has not accepted the addition made of the assessee, as the assessee has not\naccepted the addition made in his case, either in this year or in earlier year. The assessee\nhas agitated

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

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

credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-.\nOn appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground relating to commission\nincome of Rs. 8,61,446/-, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same. About addition of Rs.\n46,50,353/-, made by the assessing officer, on account of peak investment in respect of\nundisclosed bank accounts

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

unexplained 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

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

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The detailed response to show cause notice along with evidences justifying genuineness of the transactions was furnished, before the assessing officer. In this regard, the ld. Counsel relied on certain case-law, which we have gone through. The ld. Counsel stated that assessing officer, having gone through the documents of the assessee has passed

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

cash credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

cash credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.3,12,35,919 was disallowed and accordingly total sale proceeds of Rs.3,28,81,890/- from the sale of scrips of 'PS IT Infrastructure &Services Ltd (Formerly known as Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd) was assessed as unexplained cash credit

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings

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

cash etc found during survey has to be considered having been generated from the only known business of the appellant. In a very recent judgement Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - JaipurPaliwalJewellers, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur ITA No. 82 & 83/JP/2017 on 27 November, 2017 has dealt with a similar issue as under: “(Quote)”…… In respect of surrendered stock as income