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

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

68,064/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The confirmation of the addition is not justified. 2. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount received by a Non Resident from sources out of India was taxable in India.” We shall first take up the case

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

68,064/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The confirmation of the addition is not justified. 2. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount received by a Non Resident from sources out of India was taxable in India.” We shall first take up 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

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

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

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

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

58,68,936/- during the years from 2012-2015 During investigation, statements of various persons, belonging to the appellant company, were recorded under section

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

58,68,936/- during the years from 2012-2015 During investigation, statements of various persons, belonging to the appellant company, were recorded under section

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Krupalu Metals Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer, बनाम / National Faceless Assessment Plot No..4345, Gidc, Phase- Vs. Centre, Delhi/Dcit, Circle-3, Iii, Udhyog Nagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar-361008 स्थायी लेखा सं/. जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6122 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Gohil, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order Captioned Three Appeals, Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To

58,68,936/- during the years from 2012-2015 During investigation, statements of various persons, belonging to the appellant company, were recorded under section

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

58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore

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 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the aforesaid amount which comes under the head “suppliers refundable deposit” is the amount retained / withheld being 1.96% of the purchases made by the assessee with a view to ensure

VIJUBHA JITUBHA JADEJA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

58,53,211/- as Bogus Salary and Wages Expenses. The above disallowances/additions were required to be made under section 68

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

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

58,980/- only. The payment against the impugned purchases was made in cash. The assessee contended the purchases were made on credit and the same were paid in piecemeal in cash which was not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in a day for a single party. However, the AO held that the payments were made as per bill but in tally

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)

58,157 Shree Bharat Enterprises ICICI Bank CA010058 14,03,91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore