RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( here in after referred to\nas \"the Act\").\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows:\n“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting\nthe addition of Rs. 1,11,00,047/- being unexplained cash credit

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

11:30AM. You may submit as to why\nPage 3\nITA NO. 806/Rjt/2024 (AY 2016-17)\nACIT v. SYMBOSA GRANITE P. LTD.\nthe order passed by the assessing officer for the AY 2016-17 on the issues discussed\nabove should not be revised as it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of\nRevenue. In the event of non-compliance

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

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

3,11,490/-. 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

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 of the Act on account of share capital issued at the premium, treating the same as unexplained cash credit under

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 of the Income\nTax

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) of the Act and no material was brought on record by the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing that there was also the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act. Thus, we are not inclined to persuade ourselves with the contention of the learned AR for the assessee. Hence, the contention raised

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

11\nSd/-\n(Dr. Arjun Lal Saini)\nAccountant Member\nBy order/आदेश से,\nAssistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS\nITAT, Rajkot", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee challenged the order of CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. A key issue raised was that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was not in accordance with the CBDT

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

68,250/-and Services, Amenities Fees of Rs. 3,08,42,086/- & Advance for solid waste and management of Rs. 53,07,250/-, aggregating to Rs. 4,16,12,646/-, as income of the appellant authority and thereby further erred in enhancing the assessment. Page 2 of 14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 3 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would apply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

3) and hence, the disallowance of Rs. 12,92,615/- is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The learned DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order. 9. On the other hand

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)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT vs SIMIT P SHETH, tax appeal no. 553 of 2012 and CIT vs Satyanarayana P Rathi, tax appeal no. 607 of 2012, the 12.5% of total purchase of Rs. 43,53,68,202/- which comes

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)

3), the present registration was granted, hence benefit of first Proviso to section 12A is clearly available, to the assessee, as the assessment was pending, on the date of registration, which was granted by the Department. Even during appeal pendency, benefit of Proviso can be granted. There was no break in registration as the first application under

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