PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) has held as\nfollows:\n“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which

SHRI HASMUKH KESHAVLAL KESARIA-HUF,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

68 are satisfied hence, the appellant has concealed the income by furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee vide his written submissions submitted that the AO has initiated penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as per para 8 of assessment order

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.

1) 03-04 5,10,28,350 5,07,28,350 3,00,000 DCIT, Cir.1, Rajkot Vs. Smt.Manishaben N. Mashru & Anothers (14 appeals) 5 04-05 17,92,73,560 17,50,73,560 42,00,000 05-06 90,84,157 51,33,299 * 3,00,000 * for AY 2005-06, addition

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 195, as no sum in the hands of the recipients, is chargeable under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the decisions of AAR are applicable only to the petitioner before AAR and there is express bar against the applicability of AAR's decision, as a precedent in other cases and therefore, the assessing officer has grossly erred

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total 6 99 53 941 7 44 29 207 Closing stock By product

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

68,529/- 6. Aggrieved by the order of assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Id. CI(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Therefore, assessee is in further appeal before me. JETHANAND A. DHANWANI 7. Shri Kalpesh Doshi. Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that according to the provision of section

JAYDEEP THAKARSHIBHAI BADRAKIA,MORBI vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

section 132A (1) of the Income-Tax Act 1961 was executed on 06.11.2020 upon P.I. Kuvadava Road police station Rajkot and the entire amount of rupees 1,73,60,000/- was seized as they were unable to give satisfactory explanation and no documentary evidences in support of the impugned cash of Rs. 1,73,60,000/-. During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAYDEEP T BADRAKIA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

section 132A (1) of the Income-Tax Act 1961 was executed on 06.11.2020 upon P.I. Kuvadava Road police station Rajkot and the entire amount of rupees 1,73,60,000/- was seized as they were unable to give satisfactory explanation and no documentary evidences in support of the impugned cash of Rs. 1,73,60,000/-. During the course

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESHBHAI SURESHBHAI UNTAVADIYA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

section 132A (1) of the Income-Tax Act 1961 was executed on 06.11.2020 upon P.I. Kuvadava Road police station Rajkot and the entire amount of rupees 1,73,60,000/- was seized as they were unable to give satisfactory explanation and no documentary evidences in support of the impugned cash of Rs. 1,73,60,000/-. During the course

THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , RAJKOT vs. SHRI SHAMJIBHAI SADHABHAI KANGAD, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that it is settled law that the issue of claim of set off of brought forward loss is to be examined in the year in which the set off is so claimed. This regard, IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

M/S. SIMERO VITRIFIED P. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

section 68 of the Act is as under: "Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interest), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed

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)

73 to 81, Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to notice under section 148 of Act under the new regime pursuant to the directions issued in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and has considered the same along with the provisions of TOLA. 2) After considering the mandatory requirement of grant of sanction by the appropriate authority which