SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by the appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in these accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions contained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n\"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposits made in these accounts were withdrawn by\nthe appellant. Therefore, it is justified to consider that the turn over shown as deposits in\nthese accounts pertain to the appellant only. This finding is in accordance with the provisions\ncontained u/s.292(C) of the Act, which is reproduced below:\n"62 [Presumption as to assets, books of account

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

cash deposited by\nthe assessee in his bank A/c lies upon the assessee. By not producing any\ndetails, the assessee has failed to discharge primary onus. As per section 68

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

cash aggregating to Rs.19,16,81,853/- in his bank\naccount No.624805011259 maintained with ICICI Bank limited, Rajkot during\nthe financial year 2006-07 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 on different dates. The\nassessee was requested to show cause as to why the aggregated cash deposited\naggregating to Rs.6,00,02,030/- in bank account No.624805011209 and cash\naggregating

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

section, from the language adopted he has\nconsidered the cash deposited as Business Turnover.\n6.\nProceedings before Hon. ITAT (present proceedings):-\n(i) With respect to Category A appeals, Search & Seizure, the department is in appeal for\nA.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. The assessee is also in appeal for all the years. Thus there are\n12 appeals

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section, from the language adopted he has considered the cash deposited as Business Turnover. 6. Proceedings before Hon. ITAT (present proceedings):- (i) With respect to Category A appeals, Search & Seizure, the department is in appeal for A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. The assessee is also in appeal for all the years. Thus there are 12 appeals in all. (ii) The main ground

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section, from the language adopted he has considered the cash deposited as Business Turnover. 6. Proceedings before Hon. ITAT (present proceedings):- (i) With respect to Category A appeals, Search & Seizure, the department is in appeal for A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. The assessee is also in appeal for all the years. Thus there are 12 appeals in all. (ii) The main ground

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section, from the language adopted he has considered the cash deposited as Business Turnover. 6. Proceedings before Hon. ITAT (present proceedings):- (i) With respect to Category A appeals, Search & Seizure, the department is in appeal for A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. The assessee is also in appeal for all the years. Thus there are 12 appeals in all. (ii) The main ground

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section, from the language adopted he has considered the cash deposited as Business Turnover. 6. Proceedings before Hon. ITAT (present proceedings):- (i) With respect to Category A appeals, Search & Seizure, the department is in appeal for A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2013-14. The assessee is also in appeal for all the years. Thus there are 12 appeals in all. (ii) The main ground

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

deposited. [ITA No. 23/Rjt/2016;\n74/Rjt/2018; 81/Rjt/2017;75 Rjt/2018; ITA No_212/Rjt/2016; ITA No.\n24/Rjt/2016].\n(iii)\nIn this regard, it was submitted that taxpayer, as-well-as authorities are\nequally bound by the provisions of section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act\nand as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit\nwhether found

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

deposited. [ITA No. 23/Rjt/2016;\n74/Rjt/2018; 81/Rjt/2017;75 Rjt/2018; ITA_No_212/Rjt/2016; ITA No.\n24/Rjt/2016].\n(iii)\nIn this regard, it was submitted that taxpayer, as-well-as authorities are\nequally bound by the provisions of section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act\nand as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit\nwhether found