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

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)

4. Ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue relates to one issue, that is, deleting the addition of Rs.3,47,91,594/-, made by the assessing officer resorting to the provisions of section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of difference of purchases shown in Form 26AS and in Profit & Loss account. 5. Succinctly

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

4 A. He first pointed out that MAT credit related to tax paid under section 115JB of the Act for Asst.Year 2010-11 on account of tax on book profits for the said year exceeding the taxes to be paid as per normal provisions. He drew our attentionto the PB Page No.23 & 25 being the computation of income

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

4. Second ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of salary advances written off of Rs. 9,99,450/-. The AO disallowed the salary advances written of stating that the appellant has failed to prove that the persons to whom the advances were given its employees and it is also not proved that same were included in computing the income

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