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. Firstly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 65,95,445/- on account

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

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

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

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.58,65,320/- AY 2012-13 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42

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.58,65,320/- AY 2012-13 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42

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.58,65,320/- AY 2012-13 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42

FUSION GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

65,53,000/- unsecured loan + Rs.9,,93,75,000/- share capital). As per the proviso to Section 68 of the Act, it is mandatory

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

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

M/S. LEOPARD VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,VILLAGE MATEL, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

68 of the Act? ITA No. 83/Rjt/2021(M/s. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 10 - From the perusal of the case records of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, there is nothing on record to show that the AO has ever confronted the assessee on these issues and had the AO examined all the above issues

M/S. PAREKH ISHWARLAL CHUNILAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19.12.2019 at Rs.8,27,506/- thereby making addition in respect of cash sales/deposits during the demonetisation period. The PCIT observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.5,18,82,000/- in various bank accounts during the demonetisation period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and during 12 months sales

SPARTEN GRANITO PVT. LTD,MORVI vs. PCIT RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.300/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sparten Granito P. Ltd. Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम S.No.277/ B/H. Siyaram Granito Incometax-1 Jetpur Road, Rangpar Vs. Rajkot. Morbi. Pan : Aaxcs 7650 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 31.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year 2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:

65 shareholders. The ld.DR invited our attention to paper book (PB) Page No.133 and stated that the cash was deposited prior to the issue of cheque to the assessee-company. The ld.DR also invited attention towards PB Page No.164 and 165 and stated that the respective shareholders deposited the cash in bank account prior to the issue of cheque

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. 6. Further, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

Section 69A of the Act. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 65. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessing officer, on this issue, has passed the speaking assessment order. The finding

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

Section 69A of the Act. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 65. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessing officer, on this issue, has passed the speaking assessment order. The finding