MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments are made through banking

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 contemplates where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts

GRENIC TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,WANKANER-MORBI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) RKT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GRENIC TILES PVT LTD, MORBI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

section 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

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

section 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. In 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

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

section 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

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments are made through banking

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68; it cannot apply\nin a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its\nrepayment between a particular depositor and assessee.\n8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378,\nHon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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)

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

section 68; it cannot apply\nin a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its\nrepayment between a particular depositor and assessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378,\nHon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

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

section 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

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

section 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. In 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

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

section 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. In 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

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

section 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

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

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

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

section 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

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

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different\ndepositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a\nparticular depositor and assessee.\n8.\nIn Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble\nSupreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails