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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

119(2)(b). The current provisions of section 143(1)(a) allows an Assessing Officer to make prima-facie adjustment of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA or under any provisions of Chapter VIA w.e.f. 1st April 2021, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section 1 of section 139. This shows

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

68 of the Act. The prospective shareholders have managed their financial affairs by obtaining the funds from the friends and relatives, who were in position to lend to assist the assessee to raise the funds for the purpose of launching a big venture. In the assessee`s case, the assessing officer has passed the order in great detail, after

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

68 of the Act. Accordingly, it is clearly not a case where the AO has failed to apply his mind to the issue on hand. Further, it is also not a case where there was a clear omission on the part of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it is also in our view

M/S. PERTH CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of At. Unchi Mandal, Vs. Income Tax-3, Opp. 66 Kva Sub Station, Rajkot. Morbi-363641. Pan: Aahcp6296P

68 of the Act in respect of share capital of Rs. 15,15,02,000/- out of total share capital introduced of Rs. 19,99,00,000/- and gave a direction to revise the income, after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Pr. CIT-3 made the following observations while passing the Order:- “9. As noted above

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

119, or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person, As per the above Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

68 are relevant to be considered.\n6. The ld PCIT noted that there are two essential condition for invoking the\nprovisions of section 263 of I.T. Act, that the order passed by the assessing\nofficer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT\nobserved that above facts indicate that assessing officer has not conducted

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

119 days and\n120 days, respectively, before this Tribunal. The assessees have moved petition\nfor condonation of delay in each appeal, separately on separate affidavit,\nrequesting the Bench to condone the respective delays, noted above. Since\nthese appeals are related to the same group, therefore, the assessee submitted the\nidentical and similar petitions for condonation of delay, that is, contents

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 8.Grievances raised by the assessee

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

119 days’ delay, each in filing, the appeals in ITA No.609 and 610/RJT/2024, and admit these respective appeals for hearing. 7. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.612/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2018-19, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 8.Grievances raised by the assessee

RAJASHIBHAI BHIMABHAI BAPODARA,PORBANDAR vs. WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bapodara Main Chowk Ward – 2(4), Porbandar – Bapodar, Ranavav Porbandar, 360570 Gujarat - 360570 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arspb7433P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119 of Income Tax Act, which are discussing and providing a blanket exemption of Rs. 2,50,000/- per person. In the Press release dated 18.11.2016 also, it was stated that: “It was announced by the Government earlier that small deposits made in the banks by artisans, workers, housewives, etc. would not be questioned by the Income

SHRI ASHISH KANJIBHAI RATHOD,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2(2)(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

119/- is interest income. Though the assessee produced and explained the cash deposits by producing books of accounts, the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer on the sole ground that the assessee has not filed original Return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and regular Return were filed only from the Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards