THE ITO, WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S D. JEWEL,, JUNAGADH

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.15/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, M/S. D. Jewel, Ward-2, Vs. 1-Shishu Mangal Road, Junagadh. Gandhigram, Junagadh.

exemption under section 10AA should have been mentioned in place of section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the system software failed to consider the provisions of AMT (i.e. Alternate Minimum Tax) which was newly introduced under the provisions of section 115JC of the Act. 4.2 Therefore, the assessee revised its computation of income and claimed the deduction under section 10AA

M/S. FIORENZA GRANITO PVT. LTD.,AT. RATA VIRADA, TALUKA: WAKANER, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

exempt\nagriculture income is Rs. 10 Lacs, is one such glaring example. Even in such\nglaring instances, the AO didn't examine the nature and source of the shareholder\nFirst provision to sec. 68 of the Act clearly provision that in respect of share\ncapital, Explanation offered by the assessee-company shall be deemed to be not\nsatisfactory unless

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act')\n3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire\ntransaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding\nRs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

exempt agricultural income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act, being

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Us Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs. 14,32,782/- Being 50 Percent Of Agricultural Income Treating As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act In The Absence Of Books Of Accounts.

exempt agricultural income the same has been added as unexplained expenses u/s 68 of the IT Act. 6.8 (a) Addition is factual in nature and not legal. Hence, decision in other cases cannot be squarely applied without going into the facts of the case. (b) The affidavit of Shr. Dineshbhai Sojtra confirming the leasing of land is Self-serving document

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appealbefore us.\n7. Shri Vimal Desai, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the\nassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted entire documents and\nevidences, before the assessing officer. The ld.AOissuednotice under section\n8\nM/s.Sarju Vitrified P Ltd.\nITA No.83/RJT/2023

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

exempt income of Rs. 33,22,644/- being dividend income. The assessment was finalized at Rs. 9,28,77,320/- after making addition of Rs. 9,15,56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

exempt income of Rs. 33,22,644/- being dividend income. The assessment was finalized at Rs. 9,28,77,320/- after making addition of Rs. 9,15,56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

SHRI JAYANTILAL RUDABHAI BHALANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Jayantilal Rudabhai Bhalani Ito, Ward-1(3) Bilnath Krupa Vs Jamnagar. Opp: Khodiyar Colony Air Force Road, Nilkamal Colony Jamanagar 361 008. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

exempt under section 10 of the Act and there is no need to maintain books of accounts, whereas contract receipt was assessed under section 44AD of the Act, and profit of Rs.1,26,020/- earned from the contract work was accordingly offered to tax; 4 iii) Since under the above income earned by the assessee was below the taxable limit

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

exemption under section\n10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act')\n3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire\ntransaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By\nadding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

exempted agricultural income shown by these parties and\ncapital balance held by these parties in their balance sheet. Further, the\nrequirement of proving source of source(provisio to section 68

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India