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

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)

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, the assessing officer has concluded that

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.

8 10. The assessee in the year under consideration allotted fresh shares to 22 individuals which included directors of the assessee company and their family members/ relatives. The share application and premium thereon receivable from these share allottees for Rs. 6,29,01,740/- were adjusted against the outstanding balance of 9 different sundry creditors

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

13 share holders, no confirmation are\navailable in respect of 8 share holders, no bank statement is provided in respect of 2\nshare holders.\nThe facts mentioned above show that the assessment order passed by the Assessing\nOfficer for the A.Y. 2016-17 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests\nof Revenue as the assessing

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

8 Anil Dhansukhlal 9 Anil Dhansukhlal 10 10.We note that the assessing officer has proposed an addition for the amount of Rs.2,97,63,459/-, being the Fair Market Value of the property, at Oberoi Reality, purchased by the assessee. The assessing officer during the assessment proceedings asked for details of the investment. The assessee, produced before the assessing officer

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8. On the other hand the learner DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record before us. The 1st issue arises whether the provisions of section 68 of the Act can be attracted to the closing balance of cash shown

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.

13-14 355 and ACIT, Cir.1 Rajkot. 386/RJT/2011 Prop. Of M/s.Shree Divya Travels Asstt.Year 2004-05 2/16, Galaxy Commercial Centre and 2005-06 Jawahar Road, Rajkot. DCIT, Cir.1, Rajkot Vs. Smt.Manishaben N. Mashru & Anothers (14 appeals) 2 Revenue by : Shri Hargovind Singh, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri M.J. Ranpura, CA सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 30/10/2017 घोषणा

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

8. In response, Ld. D.R. relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, certain points are noteworthy. The assessee is a non-resident during the impugned year under consideration holding a UK Passport. Further, the amounts

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

8. In response, Ld. D.R. relied on the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, certain points are noteworthy. The assessee is a non-resident during the impugned year under consideration holding a UK Passport. Further, the amounts

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.

13,72,140/- during the year under consideration by cultivating on his own land (42.66 vighas) as well as land of other farmers (53.85 vinghas) by taking the same on "Ganot" at villages namely Tighra, Bhutsad, Italva and Pardi. The Assessing Officer has merely doubted the agricultural income earned by cultivating land of other farmers which was worked

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

8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 13. 15/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 14. 16/Rjt/2014

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

8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 13. 15/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 14. 16/Rjt/2014

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

8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 13. 15/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 14. 16/Rjt/2014

JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013

section 13(8) as amended by Finance Act, 2012 are also applicable to it and accordingly denied the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 7.2 The Ld. CIT (A) after considering the facts of the case held that the functions performed by the assessee are carrying out with the profit motive. As such the activities

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

8. The Ld. AR further submitted that similarly there was a withdrawal of cash from the proprietary concern namely M/s Essar Shipping which was used for the deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee. Similarly, on certain occasions there was cash available with the assessee in his cash book which was utilized for deposit in the bank

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

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