INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act. The\npresent case in hand, the assessing\nofficer made addition to the total income of the respondent assessee by invoking the\nprovision of section 69B of the Income Tax Act\n\"69B. Where in any financial year the respondent assessee has made\ninvestments or is found to be the owner

SHRI NARENDRA DHARAMDAS GIDWANI,ANJAR KUTCH vs. THE ADDL. CIT, NFAC, , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

Section 69A of Income Tax Actie. (a) unexplained money not recorded in books of account and (b) no explanation or explanation provided is unsatisfactory in opinion of authority. In the instant case, the assessee being an individual salaried person is not liable to maintain any books of accounts. The Appellant has filed return of income for assessment year

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts\nappearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal\ndeleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips\ncontained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that same represented\ntransaction of sale of stock-in-hand - Whether since neither possession nor ownership\nof any jewellery mentioned

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue revolves around various additions made by the Assessing Officer and subsequently deleted or restricted by the CIT(A), pertaining to credit entries in foreign bank accounts, gold/silver accounts, cash/premium payments, unexplained investments, disallowed interest, purchase of cheques/DDs, assessment validity under section 153A, deemed rental income, premature

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that same represented transaction of sale of stock-in-hand - Whether since neither possession nor ownership of any jewellery mentioned

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that same represented transaction of sale of stock-in-hand - Whether since neither possession nor ownership of any jewellery mentioned

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations and it was for revenue to prove that same represented transaction of sale of stock-in-hand - Whether since neither possession nor ownership of any jewellery mentioned

NATHABHAI PARSANA (LR. GANESHBHAI PARSANA),RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIR -2(1), RAJKOT

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act is unwarranted, particularly when no document and evidence has been brought on record to rebut the evidences submitted by the assessee. The ld.Counsel submitted that assessee has opening cash balance as per books of accounts which was not considered by the assessing officer. The assessee has also received cash from long term capital gains

GHANSHYAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,AT PO UMARDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE IRISH BUILDING

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 69A is unjustified. The AO has ignored the evidence of purchases made from Gujarat Agro Industries and Sahakari Society Ltd. - institutions that deal in agricultural inputs. This confirms that the assessee was engaged in legitimate business and that cash deposits were business-generated. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that the cash deposits originated

IMRAN RAFIKBHAI MOTANWALA,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-3, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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.217/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala The Ito, Ward-3 बनाम Shop No. 22/23, Sardar Patel Junagadh Marketing Yard, Dolatpara, Vs. Junagadh-362037 Pan : Aevpm6429E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Darshit Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

disallowed as per the notification of Govt. of India, as the assessee is not authorized to accept the SBN note during demonetization. The assessing officer noted that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences in support of cash deposited during the demonetization period. The assessee submitted only denomination of notes deposited during the demonetization period in his Punjab national

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

section 263 of the Act shall tantamount to change\nof opinion which would not be covered under the revisionary powers of Sec.\n263. Reliance is placed upon following judicial pronouncements in support\nof contentions of the Assessee that when due inquiries are made u/s 263\ncannot be invoked:\na. In the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s Shreeji Prints

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act, by the assessing officer at the time of passing order u/s 143(3) of the\nAct, dated15/04/2021.\n11.Further, ld. PCIT also noticed that the assessee has debited expenses in the\nname of Row Expenses, under the Direct Expenses in the Profit& Loss account\nfor the assessment year (AY) under consideration

HARIDAS MULJI RUGHANI,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 2(3), PORBANDAR

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

section\n115BBE of the Act.\n(ii) On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue relied on the\njudgements of the Ld. CIT(A) .\n6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on\nrecord.\nWe note the addition was made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act. as an\nunexplained money which

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance in the assessment\nproceedings; Hence, such ‘illegal cash payment transactions” is added and\nabetted by the assessee and his associates whereby the purchaser deposits the\ndifferential cash amount in the bank a/c of the assessee. The assessee is contacted\nby the seller about the said deposit or informed by the purchaser about it. The\nassessee verifies the deposits

ABHAY HARGOVINDBHAI PATEL,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

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

69A of the Act.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter\nin appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing\nofficer.\n7. Shri Vimal Desai, learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the\nappellate proceedings, the assessee has explained the source of cash deposit and\nlearned

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A and 69B. It has to be assessed under the Head Income from Business. We have explained the source of income disclosed during survey satisfactorily to the income tax authority at the time of survey. And as the income tax authority was satisfied with the nature and source of income, the tax at applicable rate were agreed to be deposited

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A and 69B. It has to be assessed under the Head Income from Business. We have explained the source of income disclosed during survey satisfactorily to the income tax authority at the time of survey. And as the income tax authority was satisfied with the nature and source of income, the tax at applicable rate were agreed to be deposited

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

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of Act and added to your total income. 3.2 Further, on verification of the records, it is noticed that the you have debited P&L account with Rs. 1,36,50,985/- as direct Expenses w.r.t. ROW expenses being a contractor whereas Right of way is the right to pass over or through real property

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of Act and added to your total income. 3.2 Further, on verification of the records, it is noticed that the you have debited P&L account with Rs. 1,36,50,985/- as direct Expenses w.r.t. ROW expenses being a contractor whereas Right of way is the right to pass over or through real property