BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act should not be invoked for the year under consideration and profits for the year under consideration be enhanced by the gross amount of Rs. 2,04,21,000/-. 6. In response, on 23-12-2022, the assessee has submitted a following response to the show cause notice clarifying the issues and raising various

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDFOLIO REALTIES LLP, RAJKOT

section 145(3) of the Act should not be invoked for the year\nunder consideration and profits for the year under consideration be enhanced by\nthe gross amount of Rs.2,04,21,000/-.\n6. In response, on 23-12-2022, the assessee has submitted a following response\nto the show cause notice clarifying the issues and raising various contentions

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)

145(3) of the Act without identifying any specific defects or discrepancies in the books and without providing a show cause notice prior to such rejection. 7. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of Learned assessing officer in making an addition under Section 68

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

3 partners namely Shri Shailesh Kansagara,\nShri Jay Mansukhlal Kotak and Shri Mansukhlal Jamnadas Kotak is found\ninsufficient even after considering the on-money receipts detected in the other\nfirms where these two are common partners.\n\n23. In case of Shri Shailesh Kansagara, the insufficiency of funds is\ncalculated as under -\nSr\nNo.\nParticulars\nAmount\n1. On money receipts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

3 partners namely Shri Shailesh Kansagara,\nShri Jay Mansukhlal Kotak and Shri Mansukhlal Jamnadas Kotak is found\ninsufficient even after considering the on-money receipts detected in the other\nfirms where these two are common partners.\nITA No. 511 to 513 & 684/Rjt/2024\nYagnik Road High Street Vs. DCIT\n23.\nIn case of Shri Shailesh Kansagara, the insufficiency of funds

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

3 partners namely Shri Shailesh Kansagara,\nShri Jay Mansukhlal Kotak and Shri Mansukhlal Jamnadas Kotak is found\ninsufficient even after considering the on-money receipts detected in the other\nfirms where these two are common partners.\n23. In case of Shri Shailesh Kansagara, the insufficiency of funds is\ncalculated as under -\nSr\nNo.\nParticulars\nAmount\n1. On money receipts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. RADHE DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act. 12. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), estimated the profit element on the “on money”, at the rate of 8%, 12%, 16%, 20% etc, in a different assessment years. Therefore, assessee, as well

RADHE DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act. 12. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), estimated the profit element on the “on money”, at the rate of 8%, 12%, 16%, 20% etc, in a different assessment years. Therefore, assessee, as well

RADHE DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act. 12. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), estimated the profit element on the “on money”, at the rate of 8%, 12%, 16%, 20% etc, in a different assessment years. Therefore, assessee, as well

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

section 145 of the IT Act and the G P Rate of the preceding year i.e. 7.94% is also applied in this year under consideration and the differential addition on this account i.e. 0.22% is worked out at Rs.73,78,755/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 53. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals on merit