PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

154 was carried out, vide order dated\n28.02.2018 wherein addition of Rs.589,63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

154(3) of the Act.\n3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The\nassessee e-filed its return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2020-21 on\n28.01.2021, declaring total income Rs.58,44,15,970/-, which was processed u/s\n143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CPC, Bengaluru

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

154(3) of the Act. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee e-filed its return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2020-21 on 28.01.2021, declaring total income Rs.58,44,15,970/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CPC, Bengaluru

SHRI VAJUBHAI N. KANANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 29/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani The I.T.O., बनाम/ Prop. Of M/S. Krishna Ward-2(4), Amreli Vs. Construction, At – Malsika, Tal. Dhari, Amreli "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afppk0597L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Written Submission (None) ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 05/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 20/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 25.04.2013 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-2(4), Amreli Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita No. 29/Rjt/2020 (Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani Vs. Ito) A. Y. 2007-08 - 2- 2. None Appeared At The Time Of Call On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Ld. Dr Appeared & Made His Submission In Favour Of The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below In Imposing Penalty For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.24,90,000/-. Penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. During the course of penalty proceeding, show cause dated 29.12.2009 and 09.11.2012 were issued to the assessee as to why the penalty under Section

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue

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

154 (Gujarat) dated 09.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The findings of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below: "Section 9, read with sections 195 and 40(a)(i), of the Income-tax Act 1961 and article 7 of the OECD Model Convention Income Deemed to accrue

M/S. DHARTI ESTATE,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. The ITAT Jaipur in the case of Hari NarainGattani [2021] 123 taxmann.com 8 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where assessee surrenders undisclosed income during search action for relevant year, it is not necessary that tax rate has to be charged as per provision of section

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

68 by Ld. AO in the assessment order.” 4.1. Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee order dated 30.08.2023, according to Ld. CIT (A), the appellant failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. Hence, the additions made in respect of unsecured loan/gifts in the cases

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKLAL KHIMJI MODI,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the aforesaid issues are to restored to the file of Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

154 dtd. 31-01-2011 has reduced the addition to Rs.29,84,412/-. Thus the total addition remains at Rs. 29,84,412/-. On going to the comparable chart it is noticed that out of Rs. 29,34,412/-, there is a Share Demat Expenses of Rs. 14,81,958.69 for which full details have been submitted. The Appellant

M/S. MAGNUM CERAMICS PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE, MORBI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 M/S.Magnum Ceramic P.Ltd. The Acit, Morbi Circle Plot No.207/24, Gidc Estate Vs Morbi. 8-A, National Highway At. Refaleshwar Morbi 362 268 Pan : Aafcm 2216 G

1) of the Act by the CPC, Bangalore, the credit of brought forward MAT under section 115AA of the Act was not given by the CPC in its intimation dated 15.7.2013. Accordingly, an application claiming rectification of the mistake apparent from record was filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act. In response to the same

ANILBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

154/- stating that appellant has not established that borrowed funds are utilized for purpose of business or any interest income received on funds advanced out of only borrowed funds.” “1. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in disallowing entire transportation expenses of Rs.16,90,417/- incurred against the transport income of Rs.18,82,619/- and taxing

ASHWINBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

154/- stating that appellant has not established that borrowed funds are utilized for purpose of business or any interest income received on funds advanced out of only borrowed funds.” “1. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in disallowing entire transportation expenses of Rs.16,90,417/- incurred against the transport income of Rs.18,82,619/- and taxing

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

68,516 as provision against NPA in the profit and loss account, which was claimed as deduction in terms of section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction claimed as aforesaid on the ground that the provision of NPA was not in the nature of expenditure or loss but more