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.

11 Asstt. Year 2012-13 2. The issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 2,25,00,000/- under the provisions of section 68

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)

Section 68 of the Act. 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

JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013

Section 2(15) to the appellant's case. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in contending that the appellant authority is not eligible to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in considering receipts as Development Fund

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

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the assessing officer as on the date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year

SUNBOND CERAMIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. JCIT, MORBI RANGE, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

section 68 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) noticed that assessing officer has made some crucial findings on the basis of details submitted by the assessee, and based on these findings

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Thus the addition made under 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. 11

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

11,490/-. Subsequently the\nassessment was reopened as information was received that assessee has\nindulged into script of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain\non sale of shares of Devika Proteins Limited to the tune of Rs. 2,10,474/- and\nthat the amount was claimed as exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-\ntax

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.

11 of the assessment orders. He confronted the assessee to show why these credit entries should not be added as unexplained cash credit of the assessee 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

11 persons comes to Rs.3,05,37,160/-. As per the proviso to\nsection 68of the Income Tax Act, itis mandatory (as per law) to verify the\nsource of the source and the AO failed to verify the source of the source of the\nunsecured loan and hence, there is clear violation of section 68

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai

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

11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai

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

11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai

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

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

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

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

ANIL DHANSUKHLAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 68 or 69 of the Act. The detailed findings of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below: “But that is not the end of the matter. In our considered opinion, the conflict between the provisions is only with reference to the onus and not to the issue of taxability of income. The onus is shifted under s. 68

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

11,45,163/- made u/s 68, on account of\nunexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper\nverification or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge its\nonus under Section

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

11,45,163/- made u/s 68, on account of\nunexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, without proper\nverification or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge its\nonus under section