THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI MAHENDRABHAI D. ZALAVADIA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 I.T.O., Shri Mahendrabhai D. Zalavadia, Vs. Ward-1(1)(4), 303, Ayodhya Apartment, Rajkot. University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabpz6007F

section 45(2) of the Act further noticed the fair market value (Jantri value) as on the date of transfer i.e. Rs. 3,36,68

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

section 68 of the Act. 20.3 The facts in brief are that during the survey proceedings dated 09-12-2014 at the premises of M/s Bhavani Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd wherein the assessee is director, a diary belonging to assessee was found. The page No. 119 of the impugned diary was containing detail of cash payment

THE DCIT, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI vs. M/S. CLAYRIS CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unsecured loans of (1) Rs. 45 ,90,000/ from Dhiman Trading Pvt Ltd and (2

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.

2 lakhs was appeared against the name of Shri Suryakant Maganlal. But this amount was carried from balance of earlier years. As observed by us, section 68 of the Act contemplates where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source

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)

2. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the Learned assessing officer in making addition u/s 68 as Bogus Purchase despite transactions with Ankur Chemfood Ltd were termed as Circular Transactions by Ld assessing officer himself and upholding the decision of assessing officer despite direct decision of Ahmedabad ITAT on circular transactions

JAMNDAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI,MANAVADAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

2) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot stood dismissed on 16.07.2003 only on maintainability ground and not on merit. Practically, the imposition of penalty under Section 271D & 271E r.w.s. 269SS and 269T to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- respectively were not adjudicated

JAMNADAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI,MANAVADAR vs. DCIT, INT.TAX, , RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

2) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot stood dismissed on 16.07.2003 only on maintainability ground and not on merit. Practically, the imposition of penalty under Section 271D & 271E r.w.s. 269SS and 269T to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- respectively were not adjudicated

JAMNDAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI, MANAVADAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

2) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot stood dismissed on 16.07.2003 only on maintainability ground and not on merit. Practically, the imposition of penalty under Section 271D & 271E r.w.s. 269SS and 269T to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- respectively were not adjudicated

JAMNADAS RAMJIBHAI VIKANI,MANAVADAR vs. DCIT, INT.TAX.RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

2) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot stood dismissed on 16.07.2003 only on maintainability ground and not on merit. Practically, the imposition of penalty under Section 271D & 271E r.w.s. 269SS and 269T to the tune of Rs.26,97,460/- and Rs.23,45,415/- respectively were not adjudicated

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

2 By Cash 11.03.2005 Rs.45,00,000/- Total Rs.55,00,000/-” 5.1. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that he has received a sum of ₹35 lakhs from his father in cash dated 10 March 2005 which was returned by him on 3rd June 2005. The assessee in support of his contention filed the extracts of the cash book

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

2 By Cash 11.03.2005 Rs.45,00,000/- Total Rs.55,00,000/-” 5.1. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that he has received a sum of ₹35 lakhs from his father in cash dated 10 March 2005 which was returned by him on 3rd June 2005. The assessee in support of his contention filed the extracts of the cash book

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

2 By Cash 11.03.2005 Rs.45,00,000/- Total Rs.55,00,000/-” 5.1. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that he has received a sum of ₹35 lakhs from his father in cash dated 10 March 2005 which was returned by him on 3rd June 2005. The assessee in support of his contention filed the extracts of the cash book

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

45 Vict. C. 580)] [ the Naval Discipline Act [ 29 & 30 Vict. 109]; or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 ( 34 of 1934).] [ or the Air Force Act ( 7 Geo. 5, c. 51)] but not to affidavit presented to any court or officer, nor to proceedings before an arbitrator; The Supreme Court decisively settled in 1954 that proceedings under section

BHUMI POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-(1) (1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO by treating the receipt of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, a private limited company, is engaged in the business

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

2 raised by the assessee. They are rejected. 41. As far as ground no.3 and 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 of the Act. On an analysis of the impugned order

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

2 raised by the assessee. They are rejected. 41. As far as ground no.3 and 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 of the Act. On an analysis of the impugned order

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

2 raised by the assessee. They are rejected. 41. As far as ground no.3 and 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 of the Act. On an analysis of the impugned order

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

2 raised by the assessee. They are rejected. 41. As far as ground no.3 and 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 of the Act. On an analysis of the impugned order