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

11,34,97,915/- under the head \"Business Income\" and paid\ntax at applicable normal rate of 34.60%.\n2.5.2] The Assessing Officer treating the difference in stock as \"Unexplained\nInvestment\" and covered the same under deeming provisions of section 69B of the\nIncome tax and after applying the provisions of section 115BBE tax @ 77.25%.\n2.5.3] That the issue

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

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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

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

68,926/- as per computation enumerated in section 14A r.w.s. 8d. ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 6. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

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

68,926/- as per computation enumerated in section 14A r.w.s. 8d. ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 6. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company

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

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

5 MT Maersk Teesport 1 1,21,68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

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

5 MT Maersk Teesport 1 1,21,68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total 6 99 53 941 7 44 29 207 Closing stock By product

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)

5,44,21,025/- was treated as un-explained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BBE and was added by the assessing officer to the income of assessee. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed

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

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

5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in wrongly applying first proviso to 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

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)

68 taxmann.com 250, where in, it was held that when the statute provides that registration once granted in subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in earlier assessment years for which assessment proceedings are pending before the assessing officer, unless the registration granted earlier is cancelled or refused for specific reasons. The statute also goes

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

5. 81/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- 6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot

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

5. 81/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- 6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot

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

5. 81/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- 6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot

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)

5. In response to the notices issued, the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and furnished the required details. The books of accounts of the assessee are audited as per the requirement of section 44AB of the I.T. Act. The copy of audit report in Form No. 3CB & 3CD was submitted before the assessing officer

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. However, for the completeness of the understanding, we note that the assessee has declared her income from the activity of tailoring/embroidery which has been duly accepted by the revenue. Once the revenue disbelief the activity of the assessee, then