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.

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 68

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

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 of Pragti

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

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 of Pragti

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

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 of Pragti

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

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 of Pragti

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

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133(6) of the Act, (inquiry letter) to the agent i.e. M/s Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd., calling the details of the transactions carried out by the assessee during the period under review. In response, M/s Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd submitted its reply on 21/08/2017. Perusal of the same threw light over the fact that assessee has entered into

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the cash\ncredits, as the alleged cash sales and receipts from debtors remained wholly\nunverifiable and most notices u/s 133

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 68 to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the cash\ncredits, as the alleged cash sales and receipts from debtors remained wholly\nunverifiable and most notices u/s 133

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. We find that assessee has furnished, in respect of each person/ shareholder, following documentary evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the persons/ shareholder from whom the assessee has received share application money: • Copy of the duly notarised affidavit of the share applicants. • Copy of Bank statement of shareholder showing that

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MUMBAI vs. ATUL SHIVDAS GANATRA, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the facts that assessee failed to prove the genuineness, identity as well as creditworthiness of the suppliers. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the above ground be set aside and the addition made in the Assessment order may kindly be restored.” DCIT vs. Sh. Atul Shivdas

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

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

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

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

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

133(6) of the Act to the above mentioned parties but no response was received. Thereafter, a summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued to all the parties. In response to the summon, the parties mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the above table came forward and their statements were recorded. The AO found

CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

section 68 of the Act. The decision taken by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as erroneous even on any different ground alleging inadequate verification/inquiries by the A.O. It is clearly evident from the assessment records that the A.O. had carried out independent inquiries by issue of notices u/s 133

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

133 taxmann.com 173, held as: “Where assessee had taken unsecured loans from some persons and Assessing Officer made addition under section 68

DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S QUTONE CERAMIC P. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14

68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans as the assessee has not explained the source and the assessee Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 4 should have produced depositor. The Ld. DR further submitted that the letter/notice issued under Section 133

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 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails