THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

68 amounts to double taxation and is against the\nprinciple of natural justice. The ld CIT(A) noted that amount was received\nthrough proper banking channel and also, the same was settled by way of\ntransfer of physical gold and the same are duly reflected and offered as sales in\nthe relevant year's Trading account. This fact is confirmed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

68 amounts to double taxation and is against the\nprinciple of natural justice. The ld CIT(A) noted that amount was received\nthrough proper banking channel and also, the same was settled by way of\ntransfer of physical gold and the same are duly reflected and offered as sales in\nthe relevant year's Trading account. This fact is confirmed

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. 6. Further, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

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

M\S. LEXICO CERAMICS,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

68 of the Act on account of capital introduced by the 2 partner only. Thus, the allegation of Pr. CIT for initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO has not made enquiries or verification with regard to other partners is factually incorrect. At this juncture we also feel pertinent to refer

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD-2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

194 (Guj), wherein the Hon’ble Court after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, observed as follows: “59. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of decisions in cases of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra

JIVANBHAI DE vs. HIBHAI SARLA,THANGADH, DIST. SURENDRANAGARVS.THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

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

194 (Guj), wherein the Hon’ble Court after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, observed as follows: “59. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of decisions in cases of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194/-” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 4,11,630/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making