GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

unexplained stock has been\npurchased. Accordingly, you have offered gross disclosure of amount of\nRs.65,25,851/-, in the return of income filed for the year under consideration”\n15.In response to the above show -cause notices, the assessee, submitted\nwritten submissions before the ld.Pr.CIT and explained, the issues raised by the\nld. PCIT.About the stock difference in the valuation

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

unexplained stock has been purchased. Accordingly, you have offered gross disclosure of amount of Rs.65,25,851/-, in the return of income filed for the year under consideration” 15.In response to the above show -cause notices, the assessee, submitted written submissions before the ld.Pr.CIT and explained, the issues raised by the ld. PCIT.About the stock difference in the valuation

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

unexplained stock has been purchased. Accordingly, you have offered gross disclosure of amount of Rs.65,25,851/-, in the return of income filed for the year under consideration” 15.In response to the above show -cause notices, the assessee, submitted written submissions before the ld.Pr.CIT and explained, the issues raised by the ld. PCIT.About the stock difference in the valuation

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

money to M/s. Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. Further, he also stated therein that, these accepted deposits were to be repaid in future to the depositors. Since, details mentioned in the furnished list of depositors were incomplete in order to verify the identity genuineness & creditworthiness of the lender/depositors. Thus, assessee was requested to furnish complete postal address and other details

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

money in their hands either through cash or through cheque and the veracity and genuineness of huge loans taken by them, without making interest payment for years together, for investing/ giving loans to the assesses- company and others. The Trade creditors shall also be properly verified. Further, the bills/ vouchers of the new Plant & M/c installed, on which investment allowance

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

unexplained share capital.\n(4)The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law & on facts by concluding that the assessee has\nprovided necessary documents to substantiate identity, creditworthiness and\ngenuineness of the transactions when assessing officer has categorically noted\nthat the submission of the assessee are not found to be acceptable and the same has\nnot been independently discussed

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

unexplained. Thus, it is apparent that the assessment order passed u/s\n143(3) dated 30.09.2019 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue.\n13. Therefore, learned PCIT had issued a show cause notice to the assessee,\non 19.01.2021, to explain the above transactions, and to furnish the following\nevidences, before the learned PCIT

PALLAV,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 7.Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening of assessment are bad in law and there is no application of mind by the assessing officer. Therefore, the re- assessment

RAJSHANTI METALS PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

money transactions. It was on account of these findings that the Tribunal was prompted to reverse the order of revision. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed” 8.6 The Supreme Court in the another recent case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Meerut v. Canara Bank Securities Ltd[2020] 114 taxmann.com 545 (SC), dismissed the Revenue