THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by the A.O. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The ld. A.R. before us filed a paper book containing pages from 1 to 372 and contended that assessee has been claiming provision for guarantee/warranty consistently which was also allowed

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed by the A.O. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The ld. A.R. before us filed a paper book containing pages from 1 to 372 and contended that assessee has been claiming provision for guarantee/warranty consistently which was also allowed

BHIMJI KARSAN GHEEWALA,PORBANDAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (3) , PORBANDAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.467/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhimji Karsan Gheewala Ito, Ward-2(3)(4) बनाम Kedareshwar Road Porbandar. Porbandar Vs. Pan : Aacfb 3513 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

section 133(6) of the Act. That is, all the parties, replied to the assessing officer, therefore, in these circumstances, all the cash -sales, cannot be treated false. 8.We find thatduring the demonetization period, the assessee has deposited total cash of Rs. 30,57,618/-in his bank account, including an amount of Rs. 4,75,039/-, received from sundry

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S QUTONE CERAMIC P. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs.4,77,320/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act out of expenses on account of Provident Fund. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that as regards ground no.1

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAMBOO PROLEN PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, ground number 8 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act to both the suppliers, which were returned unserved with the remarks “left”. Accordingly, the AO made disallowance

KETAN GORI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(10), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

disallowed merely based on allegations of the suppliers being bogus. 7.However, ld. Pr. CIT rejected the above submissions of the assessee and observed that in case of some of the suppliers, the GST registrations were cancelled therefore, this leads to conclusion that the genuineness of transactions with supplier is not proved. The ld. PCIT held that the assessment order passed

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Disallowance out of various expenses Rs.2,98,272/- 2. On the facts of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The first issue raised by the revenue

M/S. VASUDEV MINERALS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is being allowed

section 133(6) has been served on Mr. D. H. Jadeja who has confirmed/confessed that the transportation work was carried for the assessee during the impugned assessment year. Mr. D H Jadeja had lost the original bill, and on assessee’s demand when Mr. D H Jadeja given duplicate bill, he inadvertently filled incorrect date which fell outside the assessment

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

section 133(6) of the Act. Likewise, out of the total investor companies, the directors of 2 companies were called for, who appeared before the AO wherein it was accepted by them to have made the investments in the assessee company. 3.5 However, the AO was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee for the reason that the project

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section 36(1)(iii) of the act. The same may be allowed by your honor now. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add amend, alter, delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal before

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section 36(1)(iii) of the act. The same may be allowed by your honor now. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add amend, alter, delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal before

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the interest paid on the amounts borrowed to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- without even referring to the provision of the section 36(1)(iii) of the act. The same may be allowed by your honor now. 5) The appellant reserves the right to add amend, alter, delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S KESHODWALA FOODS., VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1133/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-08) D.C.I.T, बनाम/ M/S Keshodwala Foods, Circle-1, 305-G.I.D.C. Industrial Vs. Junagadh. Estate, Somnath Road, Veraval. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfk6651Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 16/06/2010, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 08/12/2009 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007- 08. A.Y. 2007-08 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly he disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 16. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 5.1. I have carefully considered the finding given by the Assessing Officer and the submission

SHREEJI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

133 (Jaipur – Trib.) 4. Rajmoti Road Movers Vs. PCIT-1, Rajkot On going through these judgements and various judgements of different High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court, we are inclined to derive a inference that when the delay is not attributable to the gross negligence or carelessness of the Assessee and when there is sufficient and reasonable cause

M/S SHYAM ENTERPRISE,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, M/S Shyam Enterprise, Ward 1(3), Vs. Shop No.3, Prasang Complex, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

section 133(6) of the Act. The assessee has also not produced any documentary evidence in support of such rent expenses. The assessee finally agreed before the AO for the disallowance

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to conduct further necessary inquiry, which the assessing officer has failed to do so. Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh v. ACIT ITA No.385/Rjt/2023 AY. 2017-18 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further stated that before the assessing officer, assessee has furnished, copy of the bills, and vouchers and audited financial statements, including

M/S SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM. vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Acit, Ltd., Vs. Gandhidham Circle Shed No.280/281, A Type, Gandhidham. Sector No.3, Ka Sez, Gandhinagar- Kutch वष" Ito, M/S. Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ward-2, Vs. Ltd., Gandhidham "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 0565 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan L. Agarwal, Ar. Revenue By : S Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2018

disallowance. The detail of the commission paid by the assessee in the subsequent years is placed on pages 387 to 391 of the paper book. 6.4 The Ld. AR also submitted that the provision of section 69C cannot be invoked in the case in hand. It is because the assessee has explained the nature of the expenses and the source

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

disallowance of the expenses relates to the salary expenses which was very much verifiable by the AO by way of issuing the notices under section 133