HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

4 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. discrepancies/mismatches should have raised the antenna of the assessing officer and he should have conducted necessary enquiries/verifications. However, the assessing officer accepted the share capital investment and loans without carrying out inquiry/verification that should have been done. 6. First proviso to section 68

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

11,00,047/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have\nconsidered that the assessee merely submitted sale bills without providing contra confirmation\nof any buyer and failed to substantiate genuineness of sale transactions.\n3. On the facts and circumstances

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,11,630/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

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

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 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

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

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

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions the assessee has made reference

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions the assessee has made reference

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions the assessee has made reference

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions the assessee has made reference

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions the assessee has made reference