ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

reassessments. 3. Ensuring Integrity of Financial Reporting: Segregating eligible business profits upholds the integrity of financial statements, reflecting true and fair views of different business segments. Consequences of Non-Compliance 1. Invalid Deduction Claims: Failure to claim the deduction through the profit and loss account may lead to disallowance, increasing the tax liability of the taxpayer. 2. Administrative Burden: Without

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

35. With the assistance of the ld.CIT-DR, we have gone through the submissions filed by the assessee. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. "271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) The Assessing Officer

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

1. It is respectfully submitted that, the apart from the issue pertaining to the unsigned approval memo, the said approval is invalid and bad-in-law due to the non-application of mind by the designated authority before granting approval. 2. The reasons recorded by the designated authority while granting the approval nowhere suggests that, he has perused

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

1. It is respectfully submitted that, the apart from the issue pertaining to the unsigned approval memo, the said approval is invalid and bad-in-law due to the non-application of mind by the designated authority before granting approval. 2. The reasons recorded by the designated authority while granting the approval nowhere suggests that, he has perused

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

iv) On 18th December, 2006, the stay order was vacated with liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice and after considering the reply, pass an order under Section 142(2A). (v) On 19th January, 2007, an order under Section 142(2A) was passed (the special audit was to be completed within 105 days

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

iv) On 18th December, 2006, the stay order was vacated with liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice and after considering the reply, pass an order under Section 142(2A). (v) On 19th January, 2007, an order under Section 142(2A) was passed (the special audit was to be completed within 105 days

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking approval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no mention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of time prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

iv) unexplained cash credit u/s. Rs. 1,80,000/- 68 and interest thereon as discussed in para 9.2 (v) unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 Rs. 94,000/- as discussed in para 10.1 (vi) unexplained deposit by cheque Rs. 50,000/- Rs. Rs.36,64,251/- u/s. 68 as discussed in para 11.1 Total Income... Rs. 42,04,261/- Rounded

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking approval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no mention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of time prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking approval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no mention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of time prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking approval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no mention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of time prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

1)(b) has been followed by taking approval from the specified authority. However, as submitted above, there is no mention of asset or expenditure represented by the alleged-escaped income and hence, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is barred by the limitation period of time prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act.In view of the above