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

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

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

section 68 or 69 of the Act. The detailed findings of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below: “But that is not the end of the matter. In our considered opinion, the conflict between the provisions is only with reference to the onus and not to the issue of taxability of income. The onus is shifted under s. 68

M/S. LEOPARD VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,VILLAGE MATEL, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

83). As regards proviso to section 68, the assessee contended that when no addition can be made u/s. 68

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

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partly deleted the addition\nmade by the assessing officer.The ld.CIT(A) noticed that once the overall\nexpenses are not disproportionate compared to earlier year and no specific\nitem has been pointed out which

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

83,00,000/-, credited into the books of account during the year under consideration in the name of the aforesaid 6 persons should not be treated as unexplained and why it should not be treated as the income within the meaning of section 68

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.

83,00,000/-, credited into the books of account during the year under consideration in the name of the aforesaid 6 persons should not be treated as unexplained and why it should not be treated as the income within the meaning of section 68

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68. Shares of companies were purchased online, payments were made through banking channels, and shares were dematerialized. Additionally, the shares were transferred from the dematerialized account and received consideration through legitimate banking channels. The assessing officer did not have any independent source or evidence to show an agreement between the assessee and any other party to convert unaccounted

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 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On verification of the assessment records, it was noticed by the learned PCIT that 68,54,519 equity shares have been issued at Rs. 10 each raising equity share capital by Rs. 6,85,45,190/-. The seventeen persons/ entities have subscribed to the Share Capital

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

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee. 8. In Roshan Di Hatti V/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 2 SCC 378, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that wherein it has been held that if the assessee fails

LABHUBEN KIRANBHAI RATOJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(4), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.434/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) बनाम/ Labhuben Kiranbhai Ratoja, Income Tax Officer, Chamunda Krupa, 9 Ward-1(2)(4), Vs. Ranchhodnagar Society, Rajkot Gujarat-360003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akapr3388L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Bakul Ganatra, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.12.2019. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

83,000/- was assessable as cash credit of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Labhuben K. Ratoja

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

M/S. PERTH CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of At. Unchi Mandal, Vs. Income Tax-3, Opp. 66 Kva Sub Station, Rajkot. Morbi-363641. Pan: Aahcp6296P

83,98,000/- (inclusive of the cash deposits of Rs. 2,24,57,500/-) by treating the same as unexplained cash credits under section 68

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

68 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2013 relating to verification of source of the source, as well. 12. In respect of unsecured loans, the assessee need not to prove the source of the source, however assessee submitted sufficient documents and evidences before the assessing officer, such as, copies of ITR, Bank statements, confirmation, name and address and PAN number

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

section 68, the onus is upon the assessee to explain the identity of the Pankajbhai ChimanlalLodhiya v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 6 to 9 & 46 to 49 & 102/Rjt/2019 AY (2010-11 to 2014-15) creditors, capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction, however, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus, therefore, the assessing officer