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

68 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have\nconsidered that the assessee merely submitted sale bills without providing contra confirmation\nof any buyer and failed to substantiate genuineness of sale transactions.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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)

13,47,717/-. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act determining total income of " 26,12,75,610/- 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)

68 of the Act despite having rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act and overlooking the fact that the estimated addition of 12.5% of purchase value cannot be considered "any sum found credited in Books" of the Assessee, 8. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the order

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

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 is applicable only to share capital/share premium and not to the loan transactions. Therefore, we reject the plea taken by the learned DR for the revenue to the effect that assessee needs to prove source of the source for loan transaction .Besides, we have gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A) and noted that

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

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

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

section 263 was to be set aside and matter\nwas to be remanded back for fresh adjudication on merits - Held, yes [Para 13] [In\nfavour of assessee)\nPage 7\nITA NO. 806/Rjt/2024 (AY 2016-17)\nACIT v. SYMBOSA GRANITE P. LTD.\non record. A copy of master data of ROC showing the same is enclosed. The income\ngenerating activity

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.

13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Us Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs. 14,32,782/- Being 50 Percent Of Agricultural Income Treating As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act In The Absence Of Books Of Accounts.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. I.T.A No. 168/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Chandubhai R. Kaqthiriya. Vs. CIT(A) 2. The solitary issue before us is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition

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

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 GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

13-01-2014 for AYs 2007-08, 2010- 11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections

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

13-01-2014 for AYs 2007-08, 2010- 11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections

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

13-01-2014 for AYs 2007-08, 2010- 11 & 2011-12 towards quantum addition and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 27-10-2016 for AY 2005- 06 & 23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections

SMT. RASHMI SANJEEV BANGAD,GAMDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

13. We are also conscious to the fact that there was an amendment under the provisions of Section 68

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case