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 of the Act by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 465 wherein it was held as under: “It was for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. On the facts of this case

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)

68 of the Act despite having rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act and overlooking the fact that the estimated addition of 12.5% of purchase value cannot be considered "any sum found credited in Books" of the Assessee, 8

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

8. furthermore the evidence act section 106 comes for recue of revenue; the facts mentioned in statement of Mr. Prakash Bagrecha was facts which come to his specific knowledge only as he was operating the business at that them, statement given by later director based on books of account would not have the same force as of Mr. Prakash

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 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter

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.

8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provision of section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the same cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. 8

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that the entire funds had come from

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.

8. Respectfully following the above judicial decisions, we have no hesitation in holding that the Lower Authorities are not legally correct in invoking section 68

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

8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 13. 15/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 14. 16/Rjt/2014

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

8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 13. 15/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 14. 16/Rjt/2014

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

8. 10/Rjt/2017 2007-08 -do- -do- 9. 11/Rjt/2017 2010-11 -do- -do- 10. 12/Rjt/2017 2011-12 -do- -do- 11. ITA Nos. Shri Ghanshyam -do- 13/Rjt/2014 2006-07 Gordhanbhai Jakasania 601 & 603, New Empire Apartment Saurashtra University Road, Rajkot PAN: ABWPJ 1279 R 12. 14/Rjt/2014 2007-08 -do- -do- 13. 15/Rjt/2014 2010-11 -do- -do- 14. 16/Rjt/2014

ANIL DHANSUKHLAL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAXATION) GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

8 Anil Dhansukhlal 9 Anil Dhansukhlal 10 10.We note that the assessing officer has proposed an addition for the amount of Rs.2,97,63,459/-, being the Fair Market Value of the property, at Oberoi Reality, purchased by the assessee. The assessing officer during the assessment proceedings asked for details of the investment. The assessee, produced before the assessing officer

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

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

section 68 of the Act is warranted. The assessee also submitted that it is not under obligation to explain the source of source of the funds in the hands of the company i.e. M/s RNG Finlease. 17.1 The assessee in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case