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. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

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. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

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. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

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

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

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

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

68 of the Act, the\ncash to the tune of Rs.1,11,45,163/- deposited during demonetization period\nin various bank accounts of the assessee was therefore treated by the\nassessing officer, as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter

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

68 of the Act, the\ncash to the tune of Rs.1,11,45,163/- deposited during demonetization period\nin various bank accounts of the assessee was therefore treated by the\nassessing officer, as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI RASIKLAL KHIMJI MODI,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the aforesaid issues are to restored to the file of Ld

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

48,18,072/- was treated as non-genuine by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C and added back to the total income of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reduced the disallowance to Rs. 29,84,412/- after allowing credit of Rs. 18.33 lakhs on account of Securities Transaction Tax (in short “STT”) already disallowed by the assessee

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

48,224/- II Bharat I Bhatia 2008-09 85,60,64,053/- 26,68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/- III Bharat I Bhatia 2009-10 3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/- IV Bharat I Bhatia 2010-11 7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/- V Bharat I. Bhatia

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

48,224/- II Bharat I Bhatia 2008-09 85,60,64,053/- 26,68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/- III Bharat I Bhatia 2009-10 3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/- IV Bharat I Bhatia 2010-11 7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/- V Bharat I. Bhatia

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

section 68 of the Act is as under: "Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interest), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

section 68 of the Act." However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, Page | 14 ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

M/S. MAKSON CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,AT. DHUVAV, TAL. WAKANER vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, MORBI

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

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

Section 68 of the Act. Similarly the Assessing Officer asked for the difference of Rs. 3,48,093/- in unsecured