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.

section 68 of the Act. However, the AO while ITA no.287/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.28/Rjt/2018 Asstt. Year 2013-14 10 making final addition given the credit of Rs. 78

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)

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation and prove creditworthiness. Once these documents are produced, the assessee would have satisfactorily discharged the onus cast upon him. Thereafter, it is for the Assessing Officer to scrutinize the same and in case he nurtures any doubt about the veracity of these documents, to probe the matter further

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

68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments are made through banking

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.

68 of the Act. The assessee has pointed out to the ld.CIT(A) that the AO has erred in assuming narrations mentioned in these papers as representing cash credit. Remand report was called for by the ld.CIT(A) and ultimately, it was held by the ld.CIT(A) that rough entries having value of Rs.38,77,759/- could not reconciled

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

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

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

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

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

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

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

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it is not a case of lack of\ninquiry as assumed by the ld. PCIT. There is a clear difference between ‘lack of\ninquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The ld. PCIT cannot revise the assessment\norder u/s. 263 merely because he has a different opinion regarding the extent of\ninquiries than that is made

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

section 133(6) of the Act, (inquiry letter) to the agent i.e. M/s Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd., calling the details of the transactions carried out by the assessee during the period under review. In response, M/s Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd submitted its reply on 21/08/2017. Perusal of the same threw light over the fact that assessee has entered into

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

section 68 also\nbecomes academic and redundant as far as the assessment of the assessee- company\nPage 4\nITA NO. 806/Rjt/2024 (AY 2016-17)\nACIT v. SYMBOSA GRANITE P. LTD.\nis concerned. This is without prejudice to our stand that the assessment order\nof Rs. 57,61,000/- and addition of Rs. 7,78

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act as creditworthiness of the lenders/shareholders not established. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 3. Any other ground that

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

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

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

68,913/-. The assessee's case was selected for\nscrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2), dated 06.08.2013 of the I.T.\nAct, was issued and which was duly served upon the assessee.\nSubsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14.08.2014, was issued\nand served on the assessee, calling for various details relevant to the\nassessment. In response

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."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

SAPPHIRE RECLAIM RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,SHAPAR, RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is rejected

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 272/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Sapphire Reclaim Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Bhoomi Industrial Area, Plot No: Income Tax-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhawan, Race 1/44, National Highway 27, Veraval (Shapar), Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360311 Rajkot Gujarat - 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs6205B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2025

78 (SC) Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Gift) - Assessment

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

68 of the Income tax Act 1961 (Para 3 of submission). The\nassessee has further stated that there no iota of deficiencies of any kind found with\nregard to the documentation (Para 4 of submission). At para 1.5 of the submission, the\nassessee has emphasized that every transaction has been accounted, documented and\nsupported. The payments are made through banking

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

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

68. In the result, assessee`s, ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, is dismissed. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 69. The Assessee`s summarized and concise ground no.14 is reproduced below for ready reference: “(14).The Commissioner

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

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

68. In the result, assessee`s, ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, is dismissed. Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) 69. The Assessee`s summarized and concise ground no.14 is reproduced below for ready reference: “(14).The Commissioner