VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

12,75,610/- after making the following additions: I.T.A No. 117/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT Sr. Amount (Rs.) Nature Section No. 1. 7,75,000 Unexplained Gift 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, if they are circular in nature. 17. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, also explained the Bench that there are lot of differences between bogus purchase and circular trading/ circular transaction, which is the facts of present case of the assessee under consideration. The table below, submitted by the ld. Counsel explains the difference

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.

12 15.1 The assessee in the case of hand has provided primary documentary evidence as envisaged under section 68

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)

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” 16.Third proviso

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

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

68\"\n24. Our view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Calcutta in the case of Kaushalya Dealers (P.) Ltd, [2023] 147\ntaxmann.com 526 (Calcutta), wherein, on identical facts, as that of\nassessee, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT, under section 263 of\nthe Act, was quashed, holding as follows

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

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.

68 of the IT Act cannot be extended to noting in rough notebook which is not books of account as defined in section 2(12A) of the IT Act. There was no case for making the addition u/s68 of the Act on the basis of jotting in impounded documents. Further, the AO has made the addition of admitted income

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

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it is not a case of lack of\ninquiry as assumed by the ld. PCIT. There is a clear difference between ‘lack of\ninquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The ld. PCIT cannot revise the assessment\norder u/s. 263 merely because he has a different opinion regarding the extent of\ninquiries than that is made

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

section 68. Copy of the order is also enclosed for your Honours reference\n18. It has been notices from the ledger account of copy of M/s. BCCL in the books of account of the appellant. The appellant has given the inter- corporate loans to M/s. BCCL and subsequently those loans were repaid by m/s. BCCL to the appellant with

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

12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under 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

12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 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 than provisions of section 69 of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) are hereby set-aside. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions

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 than provisions of section 69 of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) are hereby set-aside. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions

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

12 13. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Russian Technology Centre (P.) Ltd,[2013] 37 taxmann.com 400 (Delhi - Trib.) held that if identity of non-resident remitter is established and money has come in through banking channels, it cannot be treated as deemed income under section 68

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

section 68 of the Act. 12. The assessee in the year under consideration has issued 92,500 shares at Rs. 200 per share

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

12. We also find that amendment for not allowing set off of loss against the income determined under section 68/69/69A/698/69C/69D of the Act is effective from 01.04.2017, whereas the assessment years in assessee's case is 2015-16. Therefore, the assessee under consideration is eligible for Page 7 of 10 Ashvin D Jadav set off of loss. In this