HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

4 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. discrepancies/mismatches should have raised the antenna of the assessing officer and he should have conducted necessary enquiries/verifications. However, the assessing officer accepted the share capital investment and loans without carrying out inquiry/verification that should have been done. 6. First proviso to section 68

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

68 of the Act.\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have\nconsidered that the assessee merely submitted sale bills without providing contra confirmation\nof any buyer and failed to substantiate genuineness of sale transactions.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

CLASSIC NETWORKS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07

68 Khedbrahma Ta. Chack Dam Nala Plaguing work (K- 14) Dist. Sabarkatha (GWSSB) 69 Earthwork in bank cutting for formatting including side drains between JLR-WSJ in Connection with Jetalsar Wanshjhaliya GC Project 70 PMGSY Pkg GJ -11-03 Ta. Kodinar 71 SR to Manavadar Sardargadh road widening and strengthening tp intermediate lane by prov. WBM seal coat

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

4) can be said to be a return filed within due date as per the provision of section 139(1). Though, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co- ITA Nos.186, 197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 7 of 10 operative Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (68

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

4) can be said to be a return filed within due date as per the provision of section 139(1). Though, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co- ITA Nos.186, 197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 7 of 10 operative Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (68

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

4) can be said to be a return filed within due date as per the provision of section 139(1). Though, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co- ITA Nos.186, 197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 7 of 10 operative Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (68

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

4) can be said to be a return filed within due date as per the provision of section 139(1). Though, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co- ITA Nos.186, 197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all) Page 7 of 10 operative Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (68

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)

68 2. 18,83,64,331/- Unexplained sundry Section not creditors mentioned by the A.O. 3. 6,00,56,842/- 5% of purchase Section not mentioned by the A.O. 4

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

4. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

4. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under 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

4. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No.1 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by treating the deposit in the bank account as unexplained cash credit under section 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 I T Act. The AO observed that the appellant had raised new share capital 6f Rs. 4

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

Section 68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee

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

Section 68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee

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

4 are concerned, we find that the assessee has disclosed agriculture income, but could not substantiate that fact. Therefore, the AO has added a sum of Rs.4,29,470/- under section 68