SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

68,000/-). It is to mentioned that this figure not include the amount that has not been received till the date of survey. however, would be received on later date but before the execution of respective conveyance deed. The above impounded Page 6 of 28 ITA Nos. 785 to 787 & 765/Rjt/2024 Six Twenty Realty Pvt. Ltd. documents was shown

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

68,000/-). It is to mentioned that this figure not include the amount that has\nnot been received till the date of survey. however, would be received on later date\nbut before the execution of respective conveyance deed. The above impounded\ndocuments was shown to Shri Ashutosh Ganatara. From his statement recorded,\nit can be seen that Shri Ashutosh Ganatara

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

BUILDFOLIO REALITIES LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

68,556/- being unaccounted profit was made by the assessing officer, over and above the regular business income reported by the assessee in the Income-tax Return filed for the year under consideration, invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved by the various additions made by the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDFOLIO REALTIES LLP, RAJKOT

68 ITD 407\n(Jabalpur-Trib.)\n3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT\n[1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on-\nmoney received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as\nundisclosed income was a reasonable amount of profit earned by the assessee

RADHE DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, , RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68,78,510/- as against the returned income of Rs.72,73,510/- , it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. (This is ground No.1 in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.549/RJT/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18, Ground No.1 in ITA No. 550/ RJT/ 2024, for A.Y. 2018-19) (ii) Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. RADHE DEVELOPERS, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68,78,510/- as against the returned income of Rs.72,73,510/- , it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. (This is ground No.1 in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.549/RJT/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18, Ground No.1 in ITA No. 550/ RJT/ 2024, for A.Y. 2018-19) (ii) Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred