TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

section 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively. Since all the cases relate to the same assessee, and the issue is identical, these matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. An application

TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysr. Asstt. Name Of Name Of Ita No. No. Year Appellant Respondent Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 1. 165/Rjt/2016 1997-98 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 2. 166/Rjt/2016 1998-99 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 3. 167/Rjt/2016 1999-00 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham Trisuns Export Corporation, Shop No. 24, The Income Tax 4. 168/Rjt/2016 2000-01 Vivekanand Officer, Ward-2, Market, Plot No. Gandhidham Kutch 122/123, Sector-8, Gandhidham (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Samir Jani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

section 143(3) r.w.s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the act”) for A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 & 2000-01 respectively. Since all the cases relate to the same assessee, and the issue is identical, these matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. An application

LOVE SHOPPERS LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect 13,25,000/-”

condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal. I.T.A No. 285/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 M/s. Love Shoppers vs. DCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that the assessee company had received a loan of " 13,25,000/- in cash from

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)

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non- disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal- plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non- disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal- plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act\nand as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit\nwhether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly\nmaintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal-plea of\nthe Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and\ngenuineness

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in\nthe light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank\nstatement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT\nshould have agreed to legal-plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to\nidentity, credit worthiness and genuineness

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act\nand as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit\nwhether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly\nmaintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal-plea of\nthe Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and\ngenuniness

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

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

condoning it or taking part in it.\nFurther down he said:\n\" It is merely taxing the individual with reference to certain facts. It is not a partner or a sharer in\nthe illegality.\"\nThat crime is not a business is also recognised in F. A. Lindsay, A. E. Woodward and W. Hiscox v. The\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal-plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal-plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness and genuineness