RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

sections": [ "115BBE", "68", "143(3)", "69B" ], "issues": "Whether Section 115BBE is applicable retrospectively, and whether the Revenue's appeal

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

3)", "Section 36(1)(iii)", "Section 43(1)", "Section 270A", "Section 270A(10b)", "Section 80JJA", "Section 68

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

3) r.w.s. 263 read with section 144B of the I.T. Act, dated 31-03-\n2022.\n(2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of\nRs.57,61,000/-made u/s. 68

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

68,000 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

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

68,000 Corporation Limited, 21 Collyer Peesport Quay, # 02-00 HSBC Building, 6 MT Maersk 3 26,96,32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress

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

68", "Section 244A", "Section 24", "Section 143(3)", "Section 142(1)"], "issues": "Whether the PCIT was justified

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) of the Act and no material was brought on record by the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing that there was also the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act. Thus, we are not inclined to persuade ourselves with the contention of the learned AR for the assessee. Hence, the contention raised

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

section 68 is effective from A.Y.2013-14 and not earlier years. Furthermore, the 3 essential tests confirming the pre proviso

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

section 68 of the Income\nTax Act and therefore, the aggregate amount of Rs.3,05,37,160/- was required\nto be disallowed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income\nof the assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3

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)

3 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT Sr. Amount (Rs.) Nature Section No. 1. 7,75,000 Unexplained Gift 68

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

section 68 of the Act. 3. The necessary facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case

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

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

3)", "Section 43B", "Section 2(24)(x)", "Section 36(1)(va)", "Section 68", "Section 115BBE

GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

3) read with Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would apply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

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

3) and hence, the disallowance of Rs. 12,92,615/- is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The learned DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order. 9. On the other hand

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)

3) of the Act without identifying any specific defects or discrepancies in the books and without providing a show cause notice prior to such rejection. 7. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of Learned assessing officer in making an addition under Section 68