SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

M/S. WINTOP VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

M/S. WINMAX CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,WAKANER vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT,, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. As such, where there is a factual mistake in the order of the AO, the learned PCIT is empowered to direct the AO to conduct the necessary enquiries. The learned DR Vehemently supported the order of the Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

JITENDRABHAI BHAGVANBHAI DALVADI,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Jitendrabhai B Dalvadi 2 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide