ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the Ld. CIT(A0 has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 72,96,000/- on account of Unexplained Cash Credit U/s. 68

KALPESH RAVJIBHAI SOJITRA,JASDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

144 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts appeal dismissing without considering the facts and merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in validity of notice issued by Ld. JAO u/s.148 which was issued manually and without DIN.” 3. The assessee has also raised

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

68". Again, the reliance\nis placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl.\nCIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held\nthat trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied\nsubsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section

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

68\". Again, the reliance\nis placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl.\nCIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held\nthat trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied\nsubsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI HARESHKUMAR MANILAL SOMAIYA,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Shri Hareshkumar Manilal Somaiya, Circle-2, Vs. Prop Of Rohit Trading Co., Jamnagar. 3-B, Milap Chamber, Grain Market, Jamnagar.

144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. The AO in the assessment proceeding found that the assessee during the year has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 11,74,50,000/- only. The AO, in the absence of any explanation, treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being passed

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

M/S AMBITIOUS FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

Section 144 of the Act. The entire sequence of events as noted above are reproduced in the assessment order at paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 as under:- 4 M/s. Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 1997-98 “A return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,854/- was filed on 30.11.1997. The said return of income

THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI ASHOKBHAI KISHORBHAI PARMAR,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI DHANJI L. CHIKALIYA, PROP. OF M/S SHIV ENTERPRISE,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI PARESH DHANJIBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI DHANJI L. CHIKALIYA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI DHANJI L. CHIKALIYA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI DHANJI L. CHIKALIYA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file any evidences or any submissions before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings

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

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

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

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties