THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

section 68, 69A, 69B & 69C fall under Chapter VI. 12 8. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that

KETKIBEN SAMIRBHAI JANI,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

68,667/-, which amounts to Rs. 13,493/-, and tax this amount at the normal rate of income tax, not under section 115BBE.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "147", "148", "69A

KISHORBHAI DATTANI,JAM KHAMBHALIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kishorbhai Dattani Vs. Income Tax Office, Hospital C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Road, Near Rajdhani Hotel, Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Dwarka, Gujarat 361335 Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakpd7272M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03 / 11 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/ 02 /2026

69A is confirmed, and Ground No. 3 is dismissed.” 5. That the assessee has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 by moving of an appeal before this Tribunal. (i) The Ld. AR Submitted that the reopening of assessment was on the ground that the loan entry of Rs. 10,00,000/- was not recorded

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "263", "147", "144B", "69A", "115BBE", "68", "69", "69A", "69D" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment order passed under section

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

sections": ["147", "143(3)", "263", "69A", "115BBE", "143(2)", "142(1)", "148", "153A", "68", "69", "69A", "69D"], "issues": "Whether

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C are all part of the same scheme where certain amounts though not proved

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 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A

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 and 69. Where assessee transferred his own fund from outside of India, said fund could not represent his unexplained investment under Section 69A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RAJESHBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR, SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 69A on account of alleged on-money payment, Rs.1,68,09,490/- under section 69A on account

K B JWELLERS,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GADHIDHAM

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

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

section 68, 69, 69A and 69C are special provisions enacted with a view to deal with such situations which

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

section 68, the onus is upon the assessee to explain the identity of the\nPage 33\ncreditors, capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction,\nhowever, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus, therefore, the assessing\nofficer has rightly made the addition. However, ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that assessee had received

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

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

section 68, the onus is upon the assessee to explain the identity of the\nPage 33\ncreditors, capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction,\nhowever, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus, therefore, the assessing\nofficer has rightly made the addition. However, ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that assessee had received

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-\ndisputed

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-\ndisputed

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

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-\ndisputed

MANISH PUNJABHAI ODEDRA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), PORBANDAR, GUJARAT

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

69A, as unexplained money.\n3. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by\nlimitation by 178 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench\nto condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the delay\nstating that assessee`s primary details were registered on the income tax portal,\nthat

SHRI ASHISH KANJIBHAI RATHOD,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2(2)(2),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

69A of the Act. Probably, an addition under section 68 of the Act could have been considered; but then

M/S. DHARTI ESTATE,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. The ITAT Jaipur