ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 to 69 cannot be invoked. Both the aspect being nature and source of the impugned amount were explained by usand our explanation was accepted by the survey officer and no further question or doubt were raised and the survey was closed. As a result of evidence of my statement on record, the question of invoking provisions

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 to 69 cannot be invoked. Both the aspect being nature and source of the impugned amount were explained by usand our explanation was accepted by the survey officer and no further question or doubt were raised and the survey was closed. As a result of evidence of my statement on record, the question of invoking provisions

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

68 to 69 cannot be invoked. Both the aspect being nature and source of the impugned amount were explained by us and our explanation was accepted by the survey officer and no further question or doubt were raised and the survey was closed. As a result of evidence of my statement on record, the question of invoking provisions

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

68 to 69 cannot be invoked. Both the aspect being nature and source of the impugned amount were explained by us and our explanation was accepted by the survey officer and no further question or doubt were raised and the survey was closed. As a result of evidence of my statement on record, the question of invoking provisions

HITESH SHAMJIBHAI KATARIA,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.370/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, Shri Hitesh Shamjibhai Kataria, Ward 3(1), Vs. Pro. Of M/S Kaizen Metals India, Jamnagar. Plot No.375, Gidc, Shanker Tekri, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar-361004. Pan: Aqzpk9160E

68,480 1. Commission paid to employees as apprehended by Id. AO is not commission or brokerage for specific sales or service, but as a matter / of firms policy it was paid as a part and parcel of salary being fixed salary + variable salary, which is calculated at fixed percentage of export sale or domestic sales and loosely termed

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

193[1] IPC is an act of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The act of giving false evidence is defined under section 191 IPC as follows: “191. Giving false evidence.— Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

193[1] IPC is an act of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The act of giving false evidence is defined under section 191 IPC as follows: “191. Giving false evidence.— Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound

PANKAJKUMAR MANILAL KALARIYA,MORBI vs. PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.359/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankajkumar Manilal Principal Commissioner Of Kalariya बनाम Income-Tax-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Shiv Park Society, Kenal Road, Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, /Vs. Morbi– 363 641 Rajkot – 360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Bsqpk0006D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025

193/- 8. The Ld. Counsel also took us through the appeal effect order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, on 27.03.2022 and stated that in the appeal effect order also, the Assessing Officer accepted the plea of assessee and did not make addition, however, made addition on a different footing, that is, on account

JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT

193/- for account No. 015305003488, aggregating\nto Rs.15,29,72,456/-, which was added to the assessee's returned income.\n7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried\nthe matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly deleted the\naddition made by the assessing officer.Aggrieved by the order of the\nLd.CIT