BHANU PRATAPBHAI GOHEL,PORBANDAR, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.206/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhanu Pratap Gohel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tajawala Super Market, S.V.P. Road, Ward – 2 (3), Porbandar – 360 575 Porbandar – 360 575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agdpg6078K (Assessee) (Respondent)

cash deposit in the bank. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual. The assessee has e-filed her return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 16.11.2017, showing income of Rs. 2,42,790/-. The assessee derived income from House Property

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (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 सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

house as collateral security to the bank, therefore, either the addition should be confirmed in the hands of the partner or in the hands of the firm. If the additions are not confirmed in the hands of the assessee, then direction may be given by the Tribunal to reopen the case of partner to assess the income pertaining

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (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 सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

house as collateral security to the bank, therefore, either the addition should be confirmed in the hands of the partner or in the hands of the firm. If the additions are not confirmed in the hands of the assessee, then direction may be given by the Tribunal to reopen the case of partner to assess the income pertaining

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

cash but to invest in construction or purchase any property and if such investment period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not attracted. It appears from the records that the assessee has complied with the requirement of the substantive provision of Section 139 and, therefore, is entitled to the claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Hence

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

depositing the cash in the bank account regularly and also withdrawing the cash from the bank regularly. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld addition of Rs.18,00,000/- for three depositors, as the assessee did not submit the sufficient evidences. We also find that assessee's appeal is not pressed by ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

depositing the cash in the bank account regularly and also withdrawing the cash from the bank regularly. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has upheld addition of Rs.18,00,000/- for three depositors, as the assessee did not submit the sufficient evidences. We also find that assessee's appeal is not pressed by ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore

SHRI KALPESH MAHIDAS MARADIA,RAJKOT vs. ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE-1(1) & 1(2), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

deposit within meaning of section 269SS. The Delhi I.T.A No. 245/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 6 Shri Kalpesh Mahidas Maradia vs. Addl. CIT ITAT in the case of ACIT v Vardaan Fashion [2015] 60 taxmann.com 407 (Delhi - Trib.) held that acceptance of cash by husband from his wife cannot said to be taking of loan or advance in strict

SAMIRBHAI SARMANBHAI MARU,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 734/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Samir Sarmanbhai Maru The Ito, Ward – 1, Plot No. 142, Raj Laxmi Park, Opp. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Shakti Chambers, Reliance Mall, Nr. Motibaug, Morbi – 363641 Junagadh (Guj) - 362001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcpm6848G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

house property & other source. Subsequently, the return of income was selected for limited scrutiny by 'CASS". The E-Notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 17.08.2018 was therefore issued and duly served upon the assessee by electronic mode as well as by RPAD. Subsequently, e-notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act/questionnaire dated 07.05.2019 was issued and duly

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

deposits of the directors, shareholders and relatives in the companies. A chart showing year-wise exposure of debt was submitted before the assessing officer. It was submitted that properties & assets mortgaged for taking finance from the bank are all accounted for in the books of account of relevant group concern or in the books of account of family members / director

CHINTAN UMEDSINH SODHA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.246/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम Chintan Umedsinh Sodha Income Tax Officer “Het” Chitrkutt Society, / Ward – 1(3), Jamnagar Plot No. 21-22, Vs Opp. Khodiyar Co, Jamnagar- 361 006 Gujrat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avgps4814B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

cash book, details of business. Form 10DB from the books of the broker etc, details were called upon by issuing notice u/s 133(6) from the share broker and bank, which were received by the assessing officer. The assessee is deriving tuition income, agriculture income, interest income from deposits in bank, share business income, rent income from house property

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

cash has been routed through different entities. The learned DR also relied on the judgements/decisions which were relied on by the assessing officer. Therefore, Ld. DR argued that addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

cash has been routed through different entities. The learned DR also relied on the judgements/decisions which were relied on by the assessing officer. Therefore, Ld. DR argued that addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family

SHRI JORUBHA JILUBHA JADEJA,VILLAGE ZANKHAR POST VIDINAR TALUKA LALPUR, DIST JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property, Income from other sources and Agricultural Income. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee filed his Return of Income declaring total income at Rs. 2,48,820/- and agricultural income of Rs. 16,95,356/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment for the reason “Large agricultural income shown in the return and large cash deposit

SHRI VASHRAMBHAI GHELABHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CEN.CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

deposit out of the agriculture income. Therefore, assessing officer also accepted the agricultural income in the previous assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, it is proved that assessee is having only source from agricultural income. We rely on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore, in the case of Madhusudan Dhakad Vs. ITO in ITA No.9/Ind/2022 pronounced

SHRI KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

deposit out of the agriculture income. Therefore, assessing officer also accepted the agricultural income in the previous assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, it is proved that assessee is having only source from agricultural income. We rely on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore, in the case of Madhusudan Dhakad Vs. ITO in ITA No.9/Ind/2022 pronounced

SHRI KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

deposit out of the agriculture income. Therefore, assessing officer also accepted the agricultural income in the previous assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, it is proved that assessee is having only source from agricultural income. We rely on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore, in the case of Madhusudan Dhakad Vs. ITO in ITA No.9/Ind/2022 pronounced