BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

3 of the assessment order has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 801A of the Appellant on the ground that 'Interest and Remuneration received by the partner cannot be said to have been derived from the business of an industrial undertaking (a) But it is a very well settled law that a firm is not a legal person even though

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

disallowed the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, to the tune of Rs.3,01,93,275/-. However, later on, the assessee`s case, was selected for scrutiny under section 143 (3) of the Act and the said deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act, was allowed by the assessing officer, vide order dated 19.09.2022, passed by the assessing officer under section

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

disallowed the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act, to the\ntune of Rs.3,01,93,275/-. However, later on, the assessee's case, was selected\nfor scrutiny under section 143 (3) of the Act and the said deduction u/s.80JJAA\nof the Act, was allowed by the assessing officer, vide order dated 19.09.2022,\npassed by the assessing officer under section

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat by HMP and PF Km 2/0 to 4/0 I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 6 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat by HMP and PF Km 2/0 to 4/0 I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 6 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat by HMP and PF Km 2/0 to 4/0 I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 6 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat by HMP and PF Km 2/0 to 4/0 I.T.A Nos. 216, 217, 203 & 211/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 6 M/s Classic Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. M/s. Classic Network

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1) (b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, these five appeals filed by the Revenue and four cross objections of assessee, pertain to the same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals of revenue and cross objections of assessee, have been

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

disallowed loss claimed by assessee on sale of shares on ground that\nassessee traded in shares of penny stock and claimed bogus loss, since shares were\npurchased online and payments were made through banking channel and AO had no\nevidence to show that there was an agreement between assessee and any other party to\nconvert accounted money by taking fictitious

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly enhanced the addition

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly enhanced the addition

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly enhanced the addition

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly enhanced the addition

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

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these\nbank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true &\ncorrect. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these\ntransactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts,\nthere is no other evidence to decide the income