SHREE MALIYA KADVA PATEL SEVA SAMAJ,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

68,271/- during the year towards Building Construction Fund, which amount has been utilised in same year for building construction (as reflected in audited Balance sheet filed) (Page 1-6 annexed herewith). Being on capital account and for capital asset and forming part of corpus of trust, such receipts have been held to be capital receipts not being income

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "68", "69C", "32", "131", "271(1)(c)" ], "issues": "Whether the reopening of assessment was justified

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

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

1,00,000 7. Amit R. Shah 2,00,000 8. Mitra Advertising 3,00,000 5.2 The assessee in support of credit of unsecured loan furnished all the necessary details i.e. PAN, confirmation, bank statement of the parties, ledgers copies showing TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account

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

1,00,000 7. Amit R. Shah 2,00,000 8. Mitra Advertising 3,00,000 5.2 The assessee in support of credit of unsecured loan furnished all the necessary details i.e. PAN, confirmation, bank statement of the parties, ledgers copies showing TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account

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

1,00,000 7. Amit R. Shah 2,00,000 8. Mitra Advertising 3,00,000 5.2 The assessee in support of credit of unsecured loan furnished all the necessary details i.e. PAN, confirmation, bank statement of the parties, ledgers copies showing TDS deducted on interest payments. However, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the bank account

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.

1 to 311 and submitted that the assessee has furnished the details of the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. As such the primary onus imposed upon the assessee was duly discharged. Had there been any doubt to the AO, then the same should have been verified by him under the provisions of section 131

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

1 to 69 and contended that all the details about the loan parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. So, the assessee has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM

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

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. DCIT-ACIT CENT-2 RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , RAJKOT vs. ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING(INDIA) PVT.LTD. (SWISS SINGAPORE INDIA PVT. LTD.), GANDHIDHAM

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

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

ADITYA BIRLA GLOBAL TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GANDHIHDAM, GANDHIDHAM, GUJARAT

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

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

section 9(1)(i) Whether since non-resident agents had rendered their services outside India and all agents had overseas offices and they were not having any permanent establishment in India, commission paid to them was not liable to tax in India Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee)." 25. In view of the above factual

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 of the Act. Thus the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who also confirmed

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

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)

1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI i. Addition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-. ii. Addition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-. On appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground relating to commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

sections": ["153A", "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "147", "132", "143(2)", "142(1)", "124(3)(a)", "144", "133(6)", "131(1A)", "127", "148", "68

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

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