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

43,59,735/-, which has been claimed as source to explain cash deposit\nin the bank account which was in turn used for payment of various\nliabilities including term loan and towards purchase of Plant & Machinery.\nThis credit amount requires to be added u/s 68 being unaccounted money\nintroduced in the books of account in the garb of cash sales

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

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

5,68,926/-. 21. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) confined the disallowance to Rs. 3,35,877/- made by the assessee in its return of income and deleted the balance disallowance as follows: “During the year assessee Company has earned tax free income of Rs.55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in mutual funds

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

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

5,68,926/-. 21. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) confined the disallowance to Rs. 3,35,877/- made by the assessee in its return of income and deleted the balance disallowance as follows: “During the year assessee Company has earned tax free income of Rs.55,32,792/- being dividend income from investment in mutual funds

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)

43,53,68,202/- which comes to Rs. 5,44,21,025/- was treated as un-explained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BBE and was added by the assessing officer to the income of assessee. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

43(5) of the Act, the loss incurred on trading of securities/commodities does not fall under the definition of speculative business and hence, the loss is relating to non-speculative business and the same is available for set off against intra head of account. The AO ought to have allowed set off of business loss incurred in the intra head

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

68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drives his income under the head salary and other sources. There was a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 24th of June 2010. The assessee in the year under

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

68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drives his income under the head salary and other sources. There was a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 24th of June 2010. The assessee in the year under

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

68 of the Act. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drives his income under the head salary and other sources. There was a search conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of the assessee dated 24th of June 2010. The assessee in the year under

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

68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments are made through banking

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.

5 of Revenue’s appeal in the Asstt.Year 2003- 04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07: ”The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief out of disallowance made from administrative and selling expenses.: 25. Ground nos.3, 3, 3 and 4 of the assessee’s appeal CO in the Asstt.Year

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

M/S. PAREKH ISHWARLAL CHUNILAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

5. That, the Revision u/s.263 is made on the basis incorrect legal provisions and therefore the order u/s.263 is bad-in-law.” 3. The return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 was filed on 16.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.38,800/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income

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

5). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer did not\nbring on record any independent material or cogent evidence to disprove the\nassessee's explanation or to demonstrate that the deposits were not from debtors,\nthereby rendering the addition arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled law.\n(6). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred

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

5). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer did not\nbring on record any independent material or cogent evidence to disprove the\nassessee's explanation or to demonstrate that the deposits were not from debtors,\nthereby rendering the addition arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled law.\n(6). The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68. Shares of companies were purchased online, payments were made through banking channels, and shares were dematerialized. Additionally, the shares were transferred from the dematerialized account and received consideration through legitimate banking channels. FAO did not have any independent source or evidence to show an agreement between the assessee and any other party to convert unaccounted money by taking