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 than provisions of section 69 of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) are hereby set-aside. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions

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.

section 68 and deleted addition. 53. On due consideration of the above facts, we do not see any reasons to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A). The assessee has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and credit-worthiness. She has filed details showing receipt and payment of the amount through banking

ANIL DHANSUKHLAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

section 68 or 69 have limited application in the case of anon-resident. [Para 13]” 15. Further, our view is fortified by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Madhusudan Rao [2015] 57

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 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 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

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

57,85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

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

57,85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

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

57,85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

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

57,85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42,57,500/- 3. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42,57,500/- 3. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42,57,500/- 3. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

Section 68 of the Act being the difference of sundry creditors between A.Y. 2007-08 (wherein the figure of sundry creditors were shown at Rs. 57

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

CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

57,263 as the contribution from its partners. That must result in a situation, where section 68 of the Act can no longer