ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

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

5,68,926/-. 21. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) confined the disallowance to Rs. 3,35,877/- made by the assessee in its return of income and deleted the balance disallowance as follows: “During the year assessee Company has earned tax free income of Rs.55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in mutual funds

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

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

5,68,926/-. 21. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) confined the disallowance to Rs. 3,35,877/- made by the assessee in its return of income and deleted the balance disallowance as follows: “During the year assessee Company has earned tax free income of Rs.55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in mutual funds

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 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before

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 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before

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)

5,44,21,025/- 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

VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

5 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT received from another person. It is because of this distinction that, a liability for purchase which has been credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68, more so when the purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefor has been allowed. In all other

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

5 MT Maersk Teesport 1 1,21,68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

5 MT Maersk Teesport 1 1,21,68,000 Shanghai Banking 6 MT Maersk Princess 3 26,96,32,792^ Corporation Limitd, 21 Collyer Quay ft 02-00 HSBC Building, Singapore 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 MT Maersk Progress 1 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 13 ISS Shipping India

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

5. 81/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- 6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot

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

5. 81/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- 6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot

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

5. 81/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- 6. IT(ss)A Nos. 2005-06 -do- -do- 09/Rjt/2017 7. 25/Rjt/2017 2006-07 -do- -do- 8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot

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

5,38,00\n49,63,301/- (after split, total\nshares 25,38,000)\nThe details of sales of the shares were submitted by the assessee, which is\nplaced at paper book page number 39-55. The Sale consideration was\nreceived through banking channel ( videPB- 59-64). The average holding\nperiod is three years. We also find that purchases of shares

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)

5. In response to the notices issued, the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and furnished the required details. The books of accounts of the assessee are audited as per the requirement of section 44AB of the I.T. Act. The copy of audit report in Form No. 3CB & 3CD was submitted before the assessing officer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

section 43(5). It is immaterial whether transaction is carried out at the recognized stock exchange or not. Even the circular of CBDT cited in the assessment order states that once it is established that the assessee has entered in the transaction of the commodity that they deal the other technical details have no material impact. Hence, this reasoning

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.

5,10,28,350 0.31% 2004-05 17,92,73,560 9,15,66,115 38,77,759 2.16% 2005-06 90,84,157 27,91,555 61 ,469 0.68% Total 23,93,86,067 10,99,87,129 40,98,852 1.05% 13. At this stage, we would like to make a reference to section 68

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

5 of the revision order, under section 263 of the Act. In\nresponse to the notice of theld.Pr.CIT, the assesseehas submitted written\nsubmissions along with documents before theld.Pr.CIT. The Reply of the\nassessee, dated 23.3.2023, is reproduced below:\n\"The revision proceeding is initiated based on the following observations:\nA. OBSERVATION: The records reveal that, you have submitted only

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

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for allowing the claim u/s.80P. However, the Hon'ble Court has not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India