THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

section 68 of the Act. 3. The necessary facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of construction of residential cum commercial complex. The assessee in the year under consideration has issued shares to the promoter directors as well as to the outsiders. The shares were

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

10,17,075/-only. As per the assessee, the amount of advances was given to various parties in the course of the business. Accordingly, it was claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) or 28 of the Act. However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that there was no evidence that the advances were

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

10,17,075/-only. As per the assessee, the amount of advances was given to various parties in the course of the business. Accordingly, it was claimed as a deduction under section 37(1) or 28 of the Act. However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that there was no evidence that the advances were

SHRI KAMLESH DEORAJ JAIN,GANDHIDHAM KUTCHH vs. THE ITO WARD 1 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

10. The Tribunal while upholding the Order of the CIT (Appeals) has considered the findings of fact recorded by the CIT (Appeals) regarding admission of the assessee before the V AT Authorities in the case of the survey carried out in M/s.Biotar Industries Limited to the effect that the assessee has entered into a circular transaction of sales and purchases

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

10(38) of the Income-\ntax Act. This claim of the assessee has been allowed by the assessing\nofficer, without going into genuineness of the transaction based on the\ncircumstantial evidences available on record.\n6.Further, Ld. PCIT noticed that one house property in the building\n\"JCLIFF\", B/h Bahumali Bhavan, Near, Race course, Rajkot, has been\nshown, as self-occupied

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

10 lakh under Section 68 of the Act) is similar to Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal. In view of our observations made in Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is also allowed. ITA Nos.50&51/Rjt/2018 Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja vs. ITO & 01 other Asst.Year

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

10 lakh under Section 68 of the Act) is similar to Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal. In view of our observations made in Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is also allowed. ITA Nos.50&51/Rjt/2018 Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja vs. ITO & 01 other Asst.Year

THE DCIT, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI vs. M/S. CLAYRIS CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

section 68 of the Act. However, the AO while ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 10 making final addition given the credit of Rs. 78,37,940 on account separate addition made for credit of unsecured loan. Hence the AO made the final addition of Rs. 5,50,63,800/-. 10.3 On appeal by the assessee

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

20 concerned with production •\nactivities, prudent businessmen entrepreneur with first complete work of plant\nand machinery then certain non-productive item like compound wall, staff worker\nquarter, security cabin, gardening, leveling, road always taken place slowly and\nwhenever such expenses incurred stand capitalize and based on period of 6\nmonth, depreciation being claimed, so few item of purchase like cement

THE ITO, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S RAIYANI COTTON INDUSTRIES,, MORBI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No. 129/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12)

20,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of bogus loans/deposits received from four different parties. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 9. It appears from the record available before us that the Ld. AO has contradicted these loans as bogus

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 is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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 is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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 is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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 is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act and on what reasons and why the evidences placed on record which are the third- party evidences are not considered. The assessing officer has not examined any evidence by issuing any notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, not only that there is no adverse statement in any other case, is recorded, and placed on record

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

10,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- 3 By Cheque 17,12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Hence the AO added

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

10,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- 3 By Cheque 17,12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Hence the AO added