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 of the Act, the\ncash to the tune of Rs.1,11,45,163/- deposited during demonetization period\nin various bank accounts of the assessee was therefore treated by the\nassessing officer, as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

155 taxmann.com 66 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that The High Court held that the Tribunal found that assessee had discharged the initial burden cast upon it under provisions of section 68

M/S. LADO CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,BELA (RANGPAR), DIST. MORBI. vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

155 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), wherein it was held that Revision proceedings under Section 263 were justified as Assessing Officer accepted assessee's claim of considering sale consideration as per agreement, instead of jantri value on which stamp duty was collected as sale consideration under Section 50C for computation of capital gains, which was clearly unsustainable. The Ld. DR placed

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act and on what reasons and why the evidences placed on record which are the third- party evidences are not considered. The assessing officer has not examined any evidence by issuing any notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, not only that there is no adverse statement in any other case, is recorded, and placed on record

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MORBI vs. M/S. KISHAN PLUS MINARALS, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (In ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

68,949/- whereas, in parallel books of accounts found and impounded as loose papers there are Partners capital accounts totalling to Rs. 7,50,60,000/-. The details are as under: ACIT Vs. Kishan Plus Minerals ITA No.124/RJT/2021 with Co.02 (AY : 2019-20) 6 8.During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to furnish the detail explanation

SAGAR JEWELLERS,PORBANDAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.222/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Sagar Jewellers Vs. Dcit Zaveri Bazar, Porbandar, Gujarat Circle-2(1), Jamnagar 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbfs5410L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. C. Thaker, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short ‘The Pcit’), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 21.02.2024, For The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2019-20. 2. The Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

Section 68 and 69D of the Act, are deeming provision, where no doubt, the source of investment is to be explained, however, there was no question before the assessing officer about the ‘source’, and rather the assessing officer did not raise this issue about the ‘source’ of investment. 12. We have heard both sides in detail and also perused

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

68, 69A of the act. The assessee has also referred he flow of funds along with bank statement placed at page numbers 5-36 of the paper book. 17. Regarding addition of Rs.23,76,000/-, the assessee submitted that in the case of his father, the substantive addition has been set aside by the learned CIT(A) to the file

SHRI JITENDRA MAJITHIA,JAM KHAMBHALIYA vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,889/-. It proves that the appellant is acting as a trader and not as commission agent. Further, he has not substantiated his claim that he is acting as a commission agent. Therefore, the contention that he earns commission only is false and baseless. As the turnover of the assessee exceeds Rs. 1 crore, the assessee was required

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961. (7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A and 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961. (8). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly charged

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. ACIT v. Kutchh Salt Allied (AY 2010-11 & 2013-14) ITA 233 to 236, 366 & Co. 23 to 25 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

68,13,104/- was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 17. Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR), for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, has not established, the availability of interest free funds, and assessee