ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

70(1) of the Act. 12. We also find that amendment for not allowing set off of loss against the income determined under section 68/69/69A/698/69C/69D of the Act is effective from 01.04.2017, whereas the assessment years in assessee's case is 2015-16. Therefore, the assessee under consideration is eligible for Page 7 of 10 Ashvin D Jadav

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

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

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

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

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. But the assessee again failed to submit or furnished any reply before the AO. Therefore the AO in absence of any reply or submission held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,568/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct-16 1,23,18,934\n3,64,120 4,26,013\n7,90,133\n6,70

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct-16 1,23,18,934\n3,64,120 4,26,013\n7,90,133\n6,70

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

70 lakhs under section 68 of the Act observing that when the assessee had already offered sales realization and such

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 being the difference of sundry creditors between A.Y. 2007-08 (wherein the figure of sundry creditors were shown at Rs. 57,70

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

68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/- III Bharat I Bhatia 2009-10 3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/- IV Bharat I Bhatia 2010-11 7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/- V Bharat I. Bhatia

SHRI RAMESH CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

68 contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated

SHRI DINESHBHAI CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

68 contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated

SHRI DINESHBHAI CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

68 contemplates that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof, or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then the sum so credited in the accounts may be treated

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act. 7. Succinct facts qua ground Nos. 1 and 2 are that assessee before us is an individual, and filed the return of income, showing income of Rs.44,99,170/-, on 29.09.2012. The assessee, is engaged in the business of finance and also deals in the real estate. The assessee has also shown agricultural income

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

section 68 of the Act. 7. Succinct facts qua ground Nos. 1 and 2 are that assessee before us is an individual, and filed the return of income, showing income of Rs.44,99,170/-, on 29.09.2012. The assessee, is engaged in the business of finance and also deals in the real estate. The assessee has also shown agricultural income

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

68,43,067/- which included total sales in 10 months, i.e. April to Sept and December to March, of the firms total sales which was Rs.4,83,98,805/- (35.37%) and for remaining 2 months total sales Rs.8,84,44,262/- (64.63%). The PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer, therefore, derived inflated cash sales at Rs.2,70

M/S. HINDUSTAN PROJECTS,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

70,00,000/- Total Rs. 80,85,000/- 5. The assessee during the assessment proceedings could not discharge his onus by furnishing the necessary details of the parties as provided under Section 68