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

23,75,045/- 5.The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC against the order of the Ld. AO dated 19.12.2017. That the Ld. CIT(A) has disposed of an appeal on dated 01.04.2024 with remarks: “The loan amount of Rs. 18,67,000/- which is said to be received by the appellant is a bogus

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.

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

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

23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessee’s four appeals (in the case of Shri

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

23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessee’s four appeals (in the case of Shri

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

23-12-2016 for AY 2006-07 & 27-10-2016 for AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12) towards penalty under different sections of the Act. ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessee’s four appeals (in the case of Shri

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

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

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

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

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

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

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

23. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

23. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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-16 1,23

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-16 1,23

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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKLAL KHIMJI MODI,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the aforesaid issues are to restored to the file of Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 of the Act being the difference of sundry creditors between A.Y. 2007-08 (wherein the figure of sundry creditors were shown at Rs. 57,70,087/-) and the sundry creditors at Rs. 1,23

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

section 68 of the Act is as under: "Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interest), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed

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

section 68 of the Act has been made. The assessee has shown rental income which has not been accepted by the AO, and he made addition of Rs.1,75,283/-. Confirmation of this addition has been challenged under Ground No.4. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 23

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

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

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

section 68 of the Act has been made. The assessee has shown rental income which has not been accepted by the AO, and he made addition of Rs.1,75,283/-. Confirmation of this addition has been challenged under Ground No.4. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 23