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)

section 68 being unexplained sundry creditors and 69C being unexplained/bogus expenditure respectively. Therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE

CORUS VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that the acceptance of the unsecured loans from the alleged shell companies has already been taxed u/s. 68

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "68", "69C", "32", "131", "271(1)(c)" ], "issues": "Whether the reopening of assessment was justified

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 69C of the Act. 59. Before the ld.CIT(A) it was contended that the assessee has not paid any interest to both creditors. They might have accounted in their books as receivable, but in fact there was no such payment. The AO has not collected any evidence showing that interest was paid to the creditors. The ld.CIT

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

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

69C of the Act with the following observations:- “7.1 So far as addition of direct & indirect expenses of Rs.48,18,072/- is concerned, the AO vide order u/s,154 dtd. 31-01-2011 has reduced the addition to Rs.29,84,412/-. Thus the total addition remains at Rs. 29,84,412/-. On going to the comparable chart it is noticed

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

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

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

68 to 69. The Scheme of Sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Income - Tax Act\n1961 would

ASHOK GOPALDAS VITHLANI,JAMKHAMBHALIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 to 69. The Scheme of Sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Income - Tax Act 1961 would

SHIV GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees(ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 595/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shiv Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, 107, Divyam Park, Jamnagar 361001 Opp. H.O. Bhatt Bunglow, Nr. Sanjeevani Medical Store, Jamnagar - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aascs8645J (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 to 69. The Scheme of Sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Income - Tax Act 1961 would

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

68 to 69. The Scheme of Sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Income - Tax Act 1961 would

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

68 to 69. The Scheme of Sections 69,69A, 69B and 69C of the Income - Tax Act 1961 would

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of difference of purchases shown in Form 26AS and in Profit & Loss account. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that such difference in purchase was never properly reconciled and/or explained by the assessee before the assessing officer with sufficient

SHRI JORUBHA JILUBHA JADEJA,VILLAGE ZANKHAR POST VIDINAR TALUKA LALPUR, DIST JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

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

section 68 of the Act. 4.2. The appellant raised grounds of appeal on the issue of addition of Rs. 3,87,935/- made u/s. 69C

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned

H J ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

68 of the Act. The AO further alleged that appellant had paid commission of Rs. 7,500/- for availing alleged bogus loan and consequently, the addition of Rs. 7,500/- is made to the appellant's total income u/s. 69C of the Act. An assessment order vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2016 assessed the total income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

section 69C of the Act.\n13. The assessing officer also discussed in the assessment order the issue of\nunaccounted receipts against sale of units of the project, Highstreet Business Bay,\nand notice has been issued to the assessee, to explain the “on money”.\n14. In response, on 23-12-2022, the assessee has submitted following reply to\nthe show