THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

cash deposits. The assessee, on the other hand is\nassailing the confirmation of 30% of cash deposits, in addition to other legal grounds\nregarding not considering assessee, as an Angadia, not adopting peak balance in the\nbank account, not giving credit/ benefit of telescopic effect of intangible addition and\nnot considering decision relied upon by the assessee etc. The Learned

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

u/s 263 of the Act, and directed the\nassessing officer to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, which have\nbeen left out, during the course of original assessment proceedings. Accordingly,\nassessing officer made addition of peak credit in individual bank accounts. However, on\nfurther appeal by assessee, before

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

cash deposited in the bank account treating the assessee as a\nbusinessman. For example, in ITA No. 210/Rjt/2018, for assessment year 2008-09,\nassessing officer framed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and\nAssessing Officer made following addition:\n34\nH\nBHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA\nDHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI\ni.\nAddition an account of commission income

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment itself is bad in law. The Assessing Officer has overruled the above objection filed by the assessee and satisfied with the explanation of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 92,51,359/- and not satisfied with the balance cash deposit of Rs. 9,80,77,641/- is added as unexplained cash deposit of the assessee and demanded

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment itself is bad in law. The Assessing Officer has overruled the above objection filed by the assessee and satisfied with the explanation of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 92,51,359/- and not satisfied with the balance cash deposit of Rs. 9,80,77,641/- is added as unexplained cash deposit of the assessee and demanded

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI GIRISHKUMAR M. PURUSWANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment itself is bad in law. The Assessing Officer has overruled the above objection filed by the assessee and satisfied with the explanation of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 92,51,359/- and not satisfied with the balance cash deposit of Rs. 9,80,77,641/- is added as unexplained cash deposit of the assessee and demanded

SHRI ANIRUDDHSINH J. SOLANKI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2008-09. 2. The Grounds of Appeal (ITA No. 454/Rjt/2018) raised by the Assessee reads as under: 1. The order of the learned CIT (A) u/s.250 is bad in law and Contrary

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI ANIRUDDHSINH J. SOLANKI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2008-09. 2. The Grounds of Appeal (ITA No. 454/Rjt/2018) raised by the Assessee reads as under: 1. The order of the learned CIT (A) u/s.250 is bad in law and Contrary

PARESHKUMAR NENSHIBHAI THAKKAR,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT- RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 hs set aside for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed supraand direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Nationsment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s reational Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition

PARESHKUMAR NENSHIBHAI THAKKAR,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 hs set aside for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed supraand direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Nationsment order after making necessary enquiries relating to cash transactions made by the assessee with M/s reational Shroff and if not found satisfactorily, appropriate addition

SHRI SAMIR KAMRUDDIN MAKHANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas theappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 68 of the Act on the alleged ground of unexplained cash deposit of Rs.3,84,57,514/-. The addition made is totally unjustified on facts as also in law, which may kindly be deleted. 5.0 Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing

SHRI MAHESH K. BHUTIYA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR

147 of the Act has mentioned that the appellant did not submit any reply in relation to show cause notice dated 28/11/2017. Thus the AO presumed that the appellant was having nothing to say with regard to points raised in the show cause notice. Accordingly the AO made addition of Rs. 17,09,490/-(i.e. cash deposit

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

cash deposited in the bank account and did not provide name and address of the beneficiaries. Therefore, addition made by the AO should be sustained. 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact

SHRI PRASHANT RAMJIBHAI KANDOLIYA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), , RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

cash deposited in the bank account and did not provide name and address of the beneficiaries. Therefore, addition made by the AO should be sustained. 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact

SHRI PRASHANT RAMJIBHAI KANDOLIYA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), , RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

cash deposited in the bank account and did not provide name and address of the beneficiaries. Therefore, addition made by the AO should be sustained. 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

cash deposited in the bank account and did not provide name and address of the beneficiaries. Therefore, addition made by the AO should be sustained. 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact

SHRI PRASHANT RAMJIBHAI KANDOLIYA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), , RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

cash deposited in the bank account and did not provide name and address of the beneficiaries. Therefore, addition made by the AO should be sustained. 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact

SHRI CHETAN HARILAL BHALODIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ( in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 429, 430/Rjt/2017 & 358/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2011-12) Prashant Ramjibhai Kandoliya, Income Tax Officer, Sanjay & Company, Premjis, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Rajput Para Main Road, Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auhpk6407E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 16 To 25/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2006-07 To 2015-16) Chetankumar Haribhai The Acit, Bhalodiya, Prop. Of Yash Central Circle-1 Vs. Enterprise, 202, Darshan Rajkot Complex, Opp. Bombay Garage, Gondal Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypb7423K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sunny Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned 13 Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Different Assessment Years, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn

cash deposited in the bank account and did not provide name and address of the beneficiaries. Therefore, addition made by the AO should be sustained. 18. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact