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)

21,025/- was treated as un-explained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BBE and was added by the assessing officer to the income of assessee. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has confirmed, the action

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

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs.\n5,21,964/-.\n3.2 In appeal by the assessee

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)

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation and prove creditworthiness. Once these documents are produced, the assessee would have satisfactorily discharged the onus cast upon him. Thereafter, it is for the Assessing Officer to scrutinize the same and in case he nurtures any doubt about the veracity of these documents, to probe the matter further

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 Income Tax Act, which contemplates that 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

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Thus the addition made under 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. 11. However, for the completeness of the understanding, we note that the assessee has declared her income from the activity of tailoring/embroidery which has been duly accepted by the revenue. Once the revenue disbelief the activity of the assessee, then

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it is not a case of lack of\ninquiry as assumed by the ld. PCIT. There is a clear difference between ‘lack of\ninquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The ld. PCIT cannot revise the assessment\norder u/s. 263 merely because he has a different opinion regarding the extent of\ninquiries than that is made

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

21,10,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- 3 By Cheque 17,12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

21,10,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- 3 By Cheque 17,12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

21,10,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- 3 By Cheque 17,12,2005 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs39,00,000/- The assessee during the assessment proceedings failed to justify the source of deposits in his bank account, therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

21,271/- and claimed exempt income of Rs. 33,22,644/- being dividend income. The assessment was finalized at Rs. 9,28,77,320/- after making addition of Rs. 9,15,56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

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

21,271/- and claimed exempt income of Rs. 33,22,644/- being dividend income. The assessment was finalized at Rs. 9,28,77,320/- after making addition of Rs. 9,15,56,045/- being unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 68

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

section 68. Copy of the order is also enclosed for your Honours reference\n18. It has been notices from the ledger account of copy of M/s. BCCL in the books of account of the appellant. The appellant has given the inter- corporate loans to M/s. BCCL and subsequently those loans were repaid by m/s. BCCL to the appellant with

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

21). Copy of Passport of issued by Republic of Portuguese from 25.03.2009 to 25.03.2014 (PB-218-235) (22). Copy of Passport of issued by Republic of Portuguese from 25.03.2022 to 25.03.2017,(PB-236-243) 9. The Copy of the allotment letter issued to the assessee, by Oberoi Realty Ltd, on 25.02.2010, is reproduced below, to the extent applicable

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

FORTUNE DEVELOPERS,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

21,000/- on account unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding