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.

131/ 133(6) of the Act. 7. Both the ld. DR and AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 6 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 of the Act has disclosed the cash on hand as on 31 March 2015 at Rs. 4,98,040/- which was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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.

131(1A) of the Act in the case of survey of “M/s.Divya Travels”. After the survey, summons were issued to the assessee requiring to appear and furnish certain requisite details, which remained unattended. However, after filing a reply on 28.2.2005, the assessee again filed a reply on 22.3.2005 disclosing an amount of Rs.32,20,478/- for the Asstt.Year

BHUMI POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-(1) (1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

131 of the Act was also obtained by the AO from all the loan parties. Thus, the assessee claimed that it has discharged onus cast under Section 68

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S TIRTH AGRO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,, GONDAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 131 of the Act have admitted the fact that they have signed the bills raised to the assessee as well as in the bank opening form. Furthermore, there are more glaring evidences such as the payment was made through account payee cheque after the deduction of TDS and Income Tax returns of the job workers. The assessee also

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

131 of the Act. Out of 8 parties, 7 parties except M/s Mitra advertising came and recorded their statements. All the parties in their statement stated that they don’t have enough source of income to lend money. They don’t know the director or shareholder of the assessee company. They all said that they know one Shri Jitendra Shah

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

131 of the Act. Out of 8 parties, 7 parties except M/s Mitra advertising came and recorded their statements. All the parties in their statement stated that they don’t have enough source of income to lend money. They don’t know the director or shareholder of the assessee company. They all said that they know one Shri Jitendra Shah

PARSHWA PRINTPACK PVT. LTD.,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

131 of the Act. Out of 8 parties, 7 parties except M/s Mitra advertising came and recorded their statements. All the parties in their statement stated that they don’t have enough source of income to lend money. They don’t know the director or shareholder of the assessee company. They all said that they know one Shri Jitendra Shah

LUNAR CERAMICS,WANKANER vs. PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

sections": [ "147", "144B", "263", "133(6)", "131", "142(1)", "68" ], "issues": "Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking section

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 68 of the Act.\n7. Succinct facts qua ground Nos. 1 and 2 are that assessee before us is an\nindividual, and filed the return of income, showing income of\nRs.44,99,170/-, on 29.09.2012. The assessee, is engaged in the business of\nfinance and also deals in the real estate. The assessee has also shown\nagricultural income

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act. 7. Succinct facts qua ground Nos. 1 and 2 are that assessee before us is an individual, and filed the return of income, showing income of Rs.44,99,170/-, on 29.09.2012. The assessee, is engaged in the business of finance and also deals in the real estate. The assessee has also shown agricultural income

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

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions

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

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

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions

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

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions

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. 13. However, the AO issued summons u/s 131(1) of the Act for the personal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases\nwhere the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus\nlies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find\nsupport & guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in\nthe commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases\nwhere the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus\nlies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find\nsupport & guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in\nthe commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar