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

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

85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

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

85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, 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

85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

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

85,618/- which was offered to tax in the year under consideration. Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that it has offered an income of Rs. 68,08,270/- by way of reversing the provision of the earlier year which is more than the provision made for the year under consideration. 5. However, the assessing officer

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S VIKAS SANITARYWARES,, MORBI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 396/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014

85,47,654/- under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 4. The assessee is a partnership firm

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. But the assessee again failed to submit or furnished any reply before the AO. Therefore the AO in absence of any reply or submission held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,568/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded

M/S. HINDUSTAN PROJECTS,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

85,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The learned

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

85,60,64,053/- 26,68,19,216/- 59,92,44,837/- III Bharat I Bhatia 2009-10 3,29,38,258/- 98,81,477/- 2,30,56,781/- IV Bharat I Bhatia 2010-11 7,81,70,284/- 2,34,51,085/- 5,47,19,199/- V Bharat I. Bhatia

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

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

85,796/- as against Rs.1,16,610/- returned by the assessee. ITA No.712/RJT/2010 & Others Shri Laljibhai Khimjibhai Patel Vs. ITO 3 5. With the assistance of the ld.DR we have gone through the record carefully. In response to the notice of hearing, none has come present on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed. The ld.CIT