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)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT vs SIMIT P SHETH, tax appeal no. 553 of 2012 and CIT vs Satyanarayana P Rathi, tax appeal no. 607 of 2012, the 12.5% of total purchase of Rs. 43,53,68,202/- which comes

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 68 of the Act.\"\nHowever, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of\nthe assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity,\nPage | 14\nITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13\nKrushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja\ngenuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made\naddition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.\n24.\nOn appeal, by the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

68" when Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the genuineness of the party for the Rs.1,70,90,800/- amount of lenders, than how the partial-genuineness of Rs.15,82,200/- can be un-explained? Genuineness of the lenders cannot be considered in part, this shows CIT(A) has negligently passed the assessee order and the same is required

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee both are dismissed

68,59,108 written off as obsolete stores and claimed in P&L a/c altogether. It has come on record that the assessee has valued the inventories such as nut bolt glass fuse bearing bushes, lock pin, pipe, screw etc. which were rusted, non-moving and unusable on account of obsolescence/damage/deterioration by efflux of time at cost and net realisation

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

68,460/-. Accordingly surplus of tax paid under 115JB as opposed to that payable under normal provision, amounting to Rs.10,40,026/- ,was carried forward for set off in subsequent years as MAT credit as per the provisions of section 115JAA(5) of the Act . B. He thereafter contended that in the computationof income for the impugned year i.e.Asst.Year

SHRI SACHIN MAROTRAO RANGARI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CIR-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the grounds raised by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

172/- as computed by the A.O. has to be construed as “turnover” for the purpose of Section 44AB of the Act. The Guidelines given by the ICAI cannot be directly imported here since the same is not binding for the Income Tax proceedings. Further CBDT has also not issued any notification/circular to the effect that for the purpose