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)

section 148 of the Act, Kamlesh Deoraj Jain on the issue that assessee could not explain, the purchase of salt of Rs. 43,75,64,479/- from M/s. Ankur Chemfood Ltd, during the financial year 2017- 18, relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that an inquiry by investigation wing

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.

section 68 of the Act. However, the AO while ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 10 making final addition given the credit of Rs. 78,37,940 on account separate addition made for credit of unsecured loan. Hence the AO made the final addition of Rs. 5,50,63,800/-. 10.3 On appeal by the assessee

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 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

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 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

15,56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

15,56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Thus the addition made under 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. 11. However, for the completeness of the understanding, we note that the assessee has declared her income from the activity of tailoring/embroidery which has been duly accepted by the revenue. Once the revenue disbelief the activity of the assessee, then

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.

15,66,115 38,77,759 2.16% 2005-06 90,84,157 27,91,555 61 ,469 0.68% Total 23,93,86,067 10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68

ANIL DHANSUKHLAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 68 or 69 have limited application in the case of anon-resident. [Para 13]” 15. Further, our view

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

15. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

15. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

15. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 2 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

15 (Mag.) (Guj.)\nWhere assessee received loan through account payee cheques and, in support of loan transaction he also brought on record copy of books of account, bank statement and income-tax return of lender, transaction in question was to be regarded as genuine and, thus, loan amount could not be added to assessee's taxable income under section

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

68 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained share capital.\n(4)The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law & on facts by concluding that the assessee has\nprovided necessary documents to substantiate identity, creditworthiness and\ngenuineness of the transactions when assessing officer has categorically noted\nthat the submission of the assessee are not found to be acceptable

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

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

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

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

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

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment

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

68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not claimed any expense against the provisions made by it in the earlier assessment