SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide

INAYATALIKHAN A. PATHAN,,VERAVAL vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

292. The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Rameshbhai Jivarbhai Desai (2020 Taxmann.com 333. On merit, the Ld. AR submitted that during the course of search carried out at the various business premises of the Gopal Group, not a single document or data was recovered evidencing

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income" and "furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.)\nheld that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and\nthe position being unclear penalty

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter