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.

section 68 of the Act for Rs. 5,30,63,780/- on account of credit of share capital and share premium. ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 8 10. The assessee in the year under consideration allotted fresh shares to 22

M/S. FIORENZA GRANITO PVT. LTD.,AT. RATA VIRADA, TALUKA: WAKANER, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 68 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein it was stated that in case of\nshare capital the assessee needs to explain the source of the source.\n9. We noted that both the parties and perused the material available on\nrecord. We note that Ld. PCIT in order ‘para 2' observed that assessee has\nnot filed any details regarding 22

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

68\"\n24. Our view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Calcutta in the case of Kaushalya Dealers (P.) Ltd, [2023] 147\ntaxmann.com 526 (Calcutta), wherein, on identical facts, as that of\nassessee, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT, under section 263 of\nthe Act, was quashed, holding as follows

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

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

22. 16/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 23. ITA Nos. 2006-07 Shri Kishor -do- 17/Rjt/2014 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Emprie Apartment Saurashtra University Road,Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 0593Q 24. 18/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 25. 176/Rjt/2014 2008-09 -do- -do- 26. 19/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 27. 20/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- Assessees by : Shri D.M. Rindani, AR Revenue

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

22. 16/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 23. ITA Nos. 2006-07 Shri Kishor -do- 17/Rjt/2014 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Emprie Apartment Saurashtra University Road,Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 0593Q 24. 18/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 25. 176/Rjt/2014 2008-09 -do- -do- 26. 19/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 27. 20/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- Assessees by : Shri D.M. Rindani, AR Revenue

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

22. 16/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 23. ITA Nos. 2006-07 Shri Kishor -do- 17/Rjt/2014 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Emprie Apartment Saurashtra University Road,Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 0593Q 24. 18/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 25. 176/Rjt/2014 2008-09 -do- -do- 26. 19/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 27. 20/Rjt/2014 2011-12 -do- -do- Assessees by : Shri D.M. Rindani, AR Revenue

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

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

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

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

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

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 for our analysis: Anil Dhansukhlal 8 Anil Dhansukhlal 9 Anil Dhansukhlal 10 10.We note that the assessing officer

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

22,83,452/- had been claimed for the first half of\nthe previous year. However, the Tax Auditor himself has reported as under :\n\"Borrowing cost incurred upto the date of commercial productions i.e. 01.10.2016,\nhas been capitalized into the respective assets. Interest after that date of commercial\nproduction has been charged to revenue.\"\nThus, it is evident that

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

22. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 23. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

22. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 23. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

22. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 23. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

22. Both the Ld. DR and Ld. AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 23. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

22. In ground no.1 and 2, assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153A of ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 16 the Income Tax Act. According to the assessee, the AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 153A for passing