PRIYANSI CORPORATION,DIST RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that\nAn unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value.\n(Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra))\nACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a\nsurvey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

CHAMPALAL COMPANY,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that\nAn unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value.\n(Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra))\nACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a\nsurvey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

OSWAL PETROCHEM,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that\nAn unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value.\n(Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra))\nACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a\nsurvey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

NARENDRAKUMAR BHANWERLAL NIMBAVAT HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that An unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value. (Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra)) ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a survey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

SHRI RAMJI HAMIR VIRDA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that An unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value. (Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra)) ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a survey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

MAHAVIR IMPEX,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that An unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value. (Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra)) ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a survey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

RISHABH STEEL SUPPLIER,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that An unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value. (Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra)) ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a survey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

OSWAL AGRICOMM PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

158 ITR 313 (SC), wherein, it was held that An unsigned paper containing allocation of profits amongst the partners has no evidentiary value. (Referred in T. Mudduveerappa Sons (supra)) ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural Industries [2009] 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM). The fact of this case is that in a survey u/s. 133A the revenue authorities found certain loose papers

ANUP A. SHAH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 106/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2005-2006 वष"

158 where it was held as under: If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 14.2 Coming to the case

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

68 and contended that the assessee has made full disclosure about exempted long term capital gain in the computation of income. The Ld. AR for this purpose drew our attention on page 22 of the paper book where the details of long-term capital gain being exempted income was disclosed in the statement of income. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted

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

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

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

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

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

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

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

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

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)

68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE 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)

68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

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

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib.)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee