THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.127/Rjt/2022

68 are relevant to be considered. 6. The ld PCIT noted that there are two essential condition for invoking the provisions of section 263 of I.T. Act, that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT observed that above facts indicate that assessing officer has not conducted

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act does not arise. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. The second issue raised by the Revenue is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undervaluation of closing stock. 10. The assessee in its balance sheet has shown

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

182 Mahek Enterprise ICICI Bank CA011014 46,36,58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee

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

182 + Rs.1,01,970).\n22.\nAggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before\nus.\n23.\nShri Mehul Ranpura, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset,\nargued that the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is itself bad in\nlaw, as the penalty notice is defective. The assessing officer

PARSHOTTAMBHAI MAGANLAL RAMOTIA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT-1 - PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Vs. Pr. Cit-1 C/O. Parli Cosmetic Laser Centre Rajkot. Usha Kiran Apartment 10, Sardar Nagar Main Road Rajkot. Pan : Abjpr 3979 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Takwani, Ld.Dr Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of the Act, and subjected to tax at a higher rate i.e. 60% as prescribed under section 115BBE of the Act. 4. The facts which emerge out of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT are that during the impugned year, survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out on the assessee on 26.02.2017, and during

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order. (ix) Applicability of section 69 is correctly applied by AO.The contention of assessee that AO has adopted as per copy of A.Y. 2015-16 is not correct. However, facts

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order. (ix) Applicability of section 69 is correctly applied by AO.The contention of assessee that AO has adopted as per copy of A.Y. 2015-16 is not correct. However, facts

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer, बनाम / National Faceless Assessment Plot No..4345, Gidc, Phase- Vs. Centre, Delhi/Dcit, Circle-3, Iii, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361008 स्थायी लेखा सं/. जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6122 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order Captioned Three Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To

182/- which is as per show cause notice. However, assessee was free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidences, which assessee failed even in response to draft assessment order. (ix) Applicability of section 69 is correctly applied by AO.The contention of assessee that AO has adopted as per copy of A.Y. 2015-16 is not correct. However, facts