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)

Section No. 1. 7,75,000 Unexplained Gift 68 2. 18,83,64,331/- Unexplained sundry Section not creditors

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.

7. Both the ld. DR and AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 6 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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.

section 68, remains in the hands of appellant. However, the AO is free to intimate the'AO of the subscribing companies, if he deems fit so. 4.11 The addition made of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- is therefore directed to be deleted. In the result, the appellant's appeal is allowed on this ground 5. When it has been

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)

7. The Learned CIT (A) erred in law and facts in upholding the action of Learned assessing officer in making an addition under Section 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

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

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

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

7\n8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the issue of\nthe share capitals is governed by the section 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)

7. However, the assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee, and held that the assessee had not discharged its liability as cast upon it, by ITA No.739/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 14-15 Sunbond Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. virtue of Section 68

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

section 143(3) of\nthe Act, dated 26/12/2017, for revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of ₹68 lakhs was added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 6. The assessee before

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of ₹68 lakhs was added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 6. The assessee before

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of ₹68 lakhs was added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). ITA Nos.174/Rjt/2014 and 26 appeals Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 6. The assessee before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the AO, the assessee failed to explain source of credit entries and also failed to reconcile entries with other material. Accordingly he treated alleged credit entries as unexplained cash credit of the assessee and made addition of Rs.5,10,28,350/- in the Asstt.Year 2003-04. Similar additions have

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Us Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs. 14,32,782/- Being 50 Percent Of Agricultural Income Treating As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act In The Absence Of Books Of Accounts.

7 Chandubhai R. Kaqthiriya. Vs. CIT(A) the assessee's bank pass book issued to him by the bank but not shown in the cash book maintained by him for that year, does not fall within the ambit of section 68

M/S. SARJU VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,MORBI-363641 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is the finding of fact given by the Tribunal that the assessee has\nproduced relevant material and offered explanation in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as\nwell as section 143(2) and after considering those materials and explanation, the ITO has come