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

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of ₹68 lakhs was added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 6. The assessee before

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

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of ₹68 lakhs was added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 6. The assessee before

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act as creditworthiness of the lenders/shareholders not established. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of rule 46A

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

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

46A. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. Now we take ITA No.388/Rjt/2013. 21. In this appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,30,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MUMBAI vs. ATUL SHIVDAS GANATRA, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 is primarily applicable where the appellant is routing his own funds in his books in the guise of loan or other credit entry However, in the instant case, the appellant was withholding the payments made on the purchases to the extent of VAT This fact has been proved from the fact that the list of persons appearing

M/S. HINDUSTAN PROJECTS,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

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

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

Section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the CIT(A) has filed the additional evidences in support of the loan taken from the parties. These additional evidences were including copy of PAN, Income Tax Return, Bank Statement

KAVERI COTEX PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMNAGAR, JAMNGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.338/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Kaveri Cotex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-3, Jamnagar At. Moti Banugar, Nr. Rampar Aaykar Bhawan, P N Marg, Crossing, Opp. Sarvoday Hotel, Manek Chowk, Jamnagar- Jamnagar Highway, 361006 Jamnagar-361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck8772G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 04 /2025

46A of the Income Tax Rule filed along with paper book containing additional documents. We further note that the assessee submitted the judgment delivered by Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava* [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159(Guj.) Section 68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. VAIBHAV GINNING SPINNING MILL PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

In the result, the Appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 826/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Dcit Vs. Vaibhav Ginning & Spinning Central Circle-2, Rajkot Mill Private Limited “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, National Highway – 27, Gondal Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Highway At Bhojpara, Gondal, Gujarat - 360311 Pan/Gir No.: Aadcv4397D (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/04/2026

46A of the Income tax Rules. However, we note that whatever, the documents and evidences submitted before the assessing officer were also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). The comparative chart of the cash deposit in three years is available in the cash book and bank book, which is already submitted before the assessing officer. Therefore, a comparative chart submitted

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

section 144 r.w.s. 263 of Act without affording\nconstructive and real opportunity of hearing.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) grievously erred on facts as also in law in not\nconsidering the fact that such high pitched addition made was without\ngiving prior and specific show cause notice. Therefore, only on this\nground alone assessment order may kindly be quashed

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties

PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the same and added to total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT-A. 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the addition has been solely made on the basis of the statements of the 5 parties out of 8 parties