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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

14. We further rely on the decision of Hon Kolkata High court in case of Ashoka Marketing co P Ltd V CIT 253 ITR 460 where in during the course of ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. 15 assessment for the assessment year 1981-82, the Assessing Officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 2

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

14. We further rely on the decision of Hon Kolkata High court in case of Ashoka Marketing co P Ltd V CIT 253 ITR 460 where in during the course of ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. 15 assessment for the assessment year 1981-82, the Assessing Officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 2

JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013

14 Asstt. Year 2012-13 8 blanket exemption, and therefore it cannot be concluded that the proviso of section 2(15) do not apply to it. 7.1 The Ld. CIT (A) further observed that the provisions of section 13(8) as amended by Finance Act, 2012 are also applicable to it and accordingly denied the exemption claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any\nexpenditure or allowance [or set off of any loss] shall be allowed to the respondent\nassessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause\n(a) of sub-section (1).]\"\nAfter the amendment total income includes additional income as voluntarily

ANIL DHANSUKHLAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 68 or 69 of the Act. The detailed findings of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below: “But that is not the end of the matter. In our considered opinion, the conflict between the provisions is only with reference to the onus and not to the issue of taxability of income. The onus is shifted under s. 68

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

14. The issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal are with regard to the validity of assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act therefore, first we proceed to the adjudicate the additional grounds of appeal. ITA Nos.30,33 & 28/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2015-16 9 15. The fact in brief

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. 14. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. 14. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section

KATARIA SNACK PELLETS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

14 PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ITO (WA.No. 1297 of 2018 IN WPC: 3485/2018) dated 12.07.2018 wherein following was observed: "Any premium received by a Company on sale of shares, in excess of its face value, if the Company is not one in which the public has substantial interest, would be treated as income from other sources, as seen from Section

SUNBOND CERAMIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. JCIT, MORBI RANGE, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

68 of the Act made by Ld. assessing officer . ITA No.739/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 14-15 Sunbond Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.1,06,229/-, as income from other sources on the basis of from no. 26AS,as made by the Ld. assessing officer . 3. Learned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

section 68 of the Act in respect of credit entries appearing in rough note books impounded during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act and made the following additions: DCIT, Cir.1, Rajkot Vs. Smt.Manishaben N. Mashru & Anothers (14 appeals) 6 Sr.No. Description Amount(Rs. ) 01 02 Annexure-A-2

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14. However, as section 68 of the Act denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit.” 9.1. However, we find that the assessee before the authorities below has taken different stands for justifying

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14. However, as section 68 of the Act denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit.” 9.1. However, we find that the assessee before the authorities below has taken different stands for justifying

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

14. However, as section 68 of the Act denotes, once there is a credit in the books maintained by the assessee, the primary onus is on the assessee, namely, to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit.” 9.1. However, we find that the assessee before the authorities below has taken different stands for justifying

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)

2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the Learned assessing officer in making addition u/s 68 as Bogus Purchase despite transactions with Ankur Chemfood Ltd were termed as Circular Transactions by Ld assessing officer himself and upholding the decision of assessing officer despite direct decision of Ahmedabad ITAT on circular transactions

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 which is not classified under any heads of income under section 14 therefore, set off of brought forward loss against this deemed income was not correct. Whether amendment brought in section 115BBE(2

THE DCIT, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI vs. M/S. CLAYRIS CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

2 loan creditors namely Priya Sales corporation and Dhiman Trading Pvt Ltd for an amount aggregating to Rs. 78,37,940/- only. As such, the assessee has shown certain outstanding creditors in the name of 9 parties against the purchase of raw materials. The assessee against the purchase of raw materials was liable to make the payment to the sundry

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable. 2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld. A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(ii) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra