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

129 377.00 5.00 Cadmium 15,960 70.00 15,960 70.00 Sillicon 75,111 1,534.00 1,48,430 807.65 Magnesium 2,688 - 16.00 - Generated Scrap 13,428.00 28,04,169 3,936.91 8,06,911 sub-total 1,55,403.70 308,93,305 46,269.42 90,45,589 (B) Add: Purchase Brass Scrap High

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

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. (7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A and 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961. (8). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly charged

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

68, as alleged unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares. 13. We note that the assessee contests the validity of reopening as well as the validity of the reassessment order passed by the A.O. under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The reasons of reopening are reproduced by the AO on Page

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

68, as alleged unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares. 13. We note that the assessee contests the validity of reopening as well as the validity of the reassessment order passed by the A.O. under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The reasons of reopening are reproduced by the AO on Page

SHRI KRISHANMOHAN RAMWADH SHINGH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR

In the result appeal, of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating documents impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's response on the same. Issue Involved: 5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of the assessee M/s Six Twenty Realty Pvt Ltd located

THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM vs. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act being unexplained cash credit through the unsecured loans based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comments of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not furnish any explanation or submission to various notices issued by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings for proposing the disallowance in respect of unsecured loans

THE ITO, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S 2D ENTERPRISE,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

68 provisions were not I.T.A No. 278/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 4 ITO vs. M/s. 2D Enterprise proved by the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of Kottex Industries vs. ACIT (2021) 129 taxman.com 151. As regards ground no. 2, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the disallowance

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under\nsection 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating\ndocuments impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's\nresponse on the same.\n\nIssue Involved:\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under\nsection 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating\ndocuments impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's\nresponse on the same.\n\nIssue Involved:\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under\nsection 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating\ndocuments impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's\nresponse on the same.\n\nIssue Involved:\n\n5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

3)/ 144 of the Act.\n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical;\ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by\nthis consolidated order.\n3. The revenue has filed the following appeals, which pertain to partnership\nfirms:\n(i).\nM/s Shubham Enterprises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE vs. MARUTI ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. It(Ss)A No Assessment Assessee Name Respondent Name No. Year 1. 12/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Chetan Dhirajlal Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Pan.:Afkpr4637P 2. 13/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Nikhilbhai Jamnadas Of Income-Tax, Central Patel Circle-1, Rajkot, P-1, Decora Highland, “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Avadh Main Road, Opp. Floor, M.G. Road, Classic Party Plot Rajkot- Rajkot-360 001 360 005 Pan No.: Agipp 1294 K 3. 17/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Shri Dhirajlal Ravji Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abopr5408A 19 & 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner Shri Rohitkumar Maganlal 4. 20/Rjt/2024 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Sanepara Circle-1, Rajkot, Kangshiyani Road, Opp. “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Sundaram Vidhyalaya, Floor, M.G. Road, Dholra Chokdi, Kothariya, Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 004 Panno.:Aaopp4848H 5. 59-60/Rjt/2023 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Decora West Hills, Near Classic Party Plot, Opp. Circle-1, Rajkot, Kalawa Road, Rajkot-360 “Amruta Estate” 2Nd 005 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abdfm3140K 6. 228/Rjt/2023 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise Of Income-Tax, Central

section 139 of the Act, on 31.05.2018, showing therein income of Rs.2,48,320/-. The assessee-firm was constituted on 06.07.2016 with the following partners: 1. M/s Decora Housing LLP – 60% 2. Shri Arvind Parshottambhai Patel – 5% stake 3. Shri Chirag Arvind Patel – 5% stake 4. Shri Ujash Janadas Vachhani – 5% stake 5. Shri Kaushik Popatlal Rathod – 5% stake

LATE OGHADBHAI KARABHAI ODEDRA (L/H BABUBHAI ODEDRA),PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.915/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedara Vs. Income Tax Officer, (L/H Babubhai Oghadbhai Odedara) Ward-2(4), At Bavalvav, Porbandar, Porbandar Gujarat-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajpo3410B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/ 03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am

129 of the Act for filing of return of income was issued on 27.06.2017 and duly served upon the assessee Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedara L/H Babubhai Oghadbhai Odedara and a notice cum /questioner u/s. 142(1) of the Act for calling various information was issued on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that assessee had deposited

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271AAA have been fulfilled. It is also held that in respect of balance undisclosed income of Rs. 1,67,68,242/-, the AO has correctly levied the penalty u/s 271AAA as undisclosed to this explanation was neither offered in the return of income nor the due taxes were paid thereupon. Therefore, A.O. is directed re-compute the penalty

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271AAA have been fulfilled. It is also held that in respect of balance undisclosed income of Rs. 1,67,68,242/-, the AO has correctly levied the penalty u/s 271AAA as undisclosed to this explanation was neither offered in the return of income nor the due taxes were paid thereupon. Therefore, A.O. is directed re-compute the penalty