THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S REAL PROCON PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

6 of 11 Asstt. Year 2012-13 failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 8.1 We are conscious to the fact that there was an amendment under the provisions of section 68

VIJAY ANANDBHAI CHAVDA,GONDAL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

68 2. 18,83,64,331/- Unexplained sundry Section not creditors mentioned by the A.O. 3. 6,00,56,842/- 5% of purchase

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 Act. Accordingly, the learned DR contended that the order of the learned CIT-A needs to be reversed. 6

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)

6. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of Learned assessing officer in rejecting the books of the Assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act without identifying any specific defects or discrepancies in the books and without providing a show cause notice prior to such rejection. 7. The Learned CIT (A) erred

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

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

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

68\"\n24. Our view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Calcutta in the case of Kaushalya Dealers (P.) Ltd, [2023] 147\ntaxmann.com 526 (Calcutta), wherein, on identical facts, as that of\nassessee, the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT, under section 263 of\nthe Act, was quashed, holding as follows

M/S. FIORENZA GRANITO PVT. LTD.,AT. RATA VIRADA, TALUKA: WAKANER, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

section 68 of the Act, etc. From\nthe perusal of the case records of the assessee for the relevant assessment year,\nthere is nothing on record to show that the AQ has ever confronted the assessee\non these issues and had the Assessing Officer examined all the above issues, he\nshould have made some noting either in the order

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

sections 206C(6) and 206C(7) were passed on 17.3.2017 whereby TCS liability of Rs.68,656/- was determined in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha. In the case of Vishal Enterprises, such liability was determined at Rs.22,68

SUNBOND CERAMIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. JCIT, MORBI RANGE, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

68 of the Act and be added to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 6. In response to the above, show cause notice, the assessee, vide its letter dated 21/12/2016, filed written submissions along with the details in respect of the parties from whom new unsecured loans and money against share application has been received during

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 18 and submitted that the cash balance shown as on 31 March 2015 cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68