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

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 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

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

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

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

SMT. RASHMI SANJEEV BANGAD,GAMDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

272 has held that such amendment is prospective and applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. The year before us relates to the assessment year 2008-09 which is not subject to the amendment in the proviso of section 68

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(6). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed application of provisions of\nsection 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(7). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings\nu/s 274 r.w.s. 270A and 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n(8). That

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT vs. TUSHAR SHAMJIBHAI GONDALIA, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in (ITA No

Section 68 of the Act\nwhich comes in the ambit of tax effect of CBDT Circular vide Circular\nNo. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024.\n3. Recently the CBDT has issued Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024,\nwhereby the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department\nbefore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before\nSupreme Court have been

M/S. SAVALIA COTTON GINNING & PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.12/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Savalia Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pr. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Plot No.242, Rajkot. Opp. 66 Kva Power Station, Shaper(Veraval) Dist. Rajkot.

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the PCIT proposed to hold the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 9th December 2018 as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue by issuing notice under section 263 of the Act dated 9th November 2020. 3.3 The assessee in response to such show cause notice

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

272/- 2. On the facts of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The first issue raised by the revenue is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. PRAVINKUMAR JETHABHAI MORDIYA, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer Pravinkumarjethabhaimordiya Vs. Aayakar Vibhag, Jk Chamber, Prop. Of Virat Agency, Na Vadela Nh 8A, At. Lalpar, Road, Morbi – 363642 Morbi – 363642 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avgpm5720L (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act, which was deleted by ITA No. 61/RJT/2025 – A.Y. – 2017-18 ITO v. PravinkumarJethabhaiMordiya the ld. CIT(A), which comes in the ambit of tax effect of CBDT Circular vide Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. 3. Recently the CBDT has issued Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, whereby the monetary limits for filing of appeals

THE ITO, WARD-3(1),, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S 2D ENTERPRISE,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

68 provisions were not I.T.A No. 278/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 4 ITO vs. M/s. 2D Enterprise proved by the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of Kottex Industries vs. ACIT (2021) 129 taxman.com 151. As regards ground no. 2, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the disallowance

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

68,529/- 6. Aggrieved by the order of assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Id. CI(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Therefore, assessee is in further appeal before me. JETHANAND A. DHANWANI 7. Shri Kalpesh Doshi. Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that according to the provision of section

RAJASHIBHAI BHIMABHAI BAPODARA,PORBANDAR vs. WARD - 2(4), PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bapodara Main Chowk Ward – 2(4), Porbandar – Bapodar, Ranavav Porbandar, 360570 Gujarat - 360570 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arspb7433P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 119 of Income Tax Act, which are discussing and providing a blanket exemption of Rs. 2,50,000/- per person. In the Press release dated 18.11.2016 also, it was stated that: “It was announced by the Government earlier that small deposits made in the banks by artisans, workers, housewives, etc. would not be questioned by the Income

KISHAN BEEJ,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.384/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kishan Beej Ito, Wared-2(1) बनाम Kashivishvanath Road Jamnagar – 361 001 Nr. P & T Office Vs. Jamnagar – 361 001 Pan : Aacfk 2114 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

272(A)(1)(d) of the Act,1961. 7.The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee filed return of income, declaring an income of Rs. 48,770/- for the assessment year 2017-18, on 28.10.2017, which

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

272 wherein their Lordships examined the earlier decisions of the Apex Court with regard to binding nature of the Circular and laid down that when a circular issued by the Board remains in operation then the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid or that it is contrary to the terms