JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

3% apart paid to middleman for arranging accommodation entries. Although no evidence of such accommodation was brought on record. On the other hand the appellant furnished the following documents to prove genuineness of transactions; Page 4 of 11 Asstt. Year 2012-13 • PAN Card of investor companies • Certificate of Incorporation of investor companies • Memorandum & Articles of Association of investor companies

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

3) and hence, the disallowance of Rs. 12,92,615/- is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The learned DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order. 9. On the other hand

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs. 10,61,58,177/- in Mutual Funds during the year under consideration. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 12.03.2013 and assessee ITA Nos.50&51/Rjt/2018 Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja vs. ITO & 01 other Asst.Year –2006-07 filed return

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs. 10,61,58,177/- in Mutual Funds during the year under consideration. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 12.03.2013 and assessee ITA Nos.50&51/Rjt/2018 Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja vs. ITO & 01 other Asst.Year –2006-07 filed return

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and Assessing Officer made following addition: 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI i. Addition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-. ii. Addition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-. On appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground relating

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

68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where\nthere has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and\nassessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails to discharge

AMIBEN RAJESHKUMAR PUNATAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.24/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar, बनाम/ Ito, Ashish, 41-New Jagnath Plot, Vs Ward – 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001(Gujarat) Rajkot "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahrpp4181F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer, therefore, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. Page 3 of 8 ITA No. 24/Rjt/2026/AY 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar 7. Shri Mehul Ranpura, 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.

3 and 4 of the assessee’s appeal CO in the Asstt.Year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. “The ld.CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining disallowance out of total disallowance made from administrative and selling expenses. 26. Next common issue raised by the Department and the assessee is with regard

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

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

3 1-12-2017 (PB- 184-189) (19). Copy of Bank Statement of assesse's wife Chetna Chandrakant Mehta NRI Account No. 087010100295956 for the period 01/01/2018 to 31-12-2018 (PB-190- 200) (20). Bank Statement of Anil Dhansuklal (PB-203-217) (21). Copy of Passport of issued by Republic of Portuguese from

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act as creditworthiness of the lenders/shareholders not established. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 3. Any other ground that

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

3 partners namely Shri Shailesh Kansagara,\nShri Jay Mansukhlal Kotak and Shri Mansukhlal Jamnadas Kotak is found\ninsufficient even after considering the on-money receipts detected in the other\nfirms where these two are common partners.\n\n23. In case of Shri Shailesh Kansagara, the insufficiency of funds is\ncalculated as under -\nSr\nNo.\nParticulars\nAmount\n1. On money receipts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

3 partners namely Shri Shailesh Kansagara,\nShri Jay Mansukhlal Kotak and Shri Mansukhlal Jamnadas Kotak is found\ninsufficient even after considering the on-money receipts detected in the other\nfirms where these two are common partners.\nITA No. 511 to 513 & 684/Rjt/2024\nYagnik Road High Street Vs. DCIT\n23.\nIn case of Shri Shailesh Kansagara, the insufficiency of funds

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

3 partners namely Shri Shailesh Kansagara,\nShri Jay Mansukhlal Kotak and Shri Mansukhlal Jamnadas Kotak is found\ninsufficient even after considering the on-money receipts detected in the other\nfirms where these two are common partners.\n23. In case of Shri Shailesh Kansagara, the insufficiency of funds is\ncalculated as under -\nSr\nNo.\nParticulars\nAmount\n1. On money receipts

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties