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

86 ITD 626 (DELHI), on identical facts held as follows: “However, 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 section 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

68 of the Act, the\ncash to the tune of Rs.1,11,45,163/- deposited during demonetization period\nin various bank accounts of the assessee was therefore treated by the\nassessing officer, as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter

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 of the Act, the\ncash to the tune of Rs.1,11,45,163/- deposited during demonetization period\nin various bank accounts of the assessee was therefore treated by the\nassessing officer, as unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section\n68 of the Act.\n7.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the\nmatter

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 68 of the Act - Rs. 31,18,120/ AY 2010-11 Total Rs.33,86,210/- AY 2011-12 Addition

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 68 of the Act - Rs. 31,18,120/ AY 2010-11 Total Rs.33,86,210/- AY 2011-12 Addition

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 68 of the Act - Rs. 31,18,120/ AY 2010-11 Total Rs.33,86,210/- AY 2011-12 Addition

SHRI CHANDUBHAI RAMJIBHAI KAQTHIRIYA,JASDAN, DIST. RAJKOT-364490 vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

68 of the Act. Accordingly, it is clearly not a case where the AO has failed to apply his mind to the issue on hand. Further, it is also not a case where there was a clear omission on the part of the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it is also in our view

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

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

section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors, genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness, said addition was to be deleted” Page 5 of 9 Viren Vallabhidas Dhakan 12. We note that the appellant filed documents such as bank statements, ITRs and ledger accounts of the creditors. However, complete information/details to the satisfaction of the Assessing

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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR vs. VASANTBHAI MULJIBHAI KANANI, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Cit, Cir-1 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani बनाम Jamnagar. Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Vs. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar-361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.08/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vasantbhai Muljibhai Kanani Dy. Cit, Cir-1 बनाम Plot No.7, Ambica Enterprise Jamnagar. Sardar Patel Ind. Estte-4 Vs. Indira Road Opp: Jakat Naka, Jamnagar- 361004 (Guj) Pan : Aitpk 8038 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent)

86,73,000/-, made by the assessing officer resorting to the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

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

68,926/- as per computation enumerated in section 14A r.w.s. 8d. ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 6. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

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

68,926/- as per computation enumerated in section 14A r.w.s. 8d. ITA Nos.214&251/Rjt/2016 Atul Auto Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2012-13 6. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company

JAYDEEP THAKARSHIBHAI BADRAKIA,MORBI vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

86,15,73,783/- on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Nilesh S Utavadiya. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the contention of the assessee and thereafter to delete duplicate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAYDEEP T BADRAKIA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

86,15,73,783/- on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Nilesh S Utavadiya. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the contention of the assessee and thereafter to delete duplicate

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI NILESHBHAI SURESHBHAI UNTAVADIYA, MORBI

In the result all the four appeal of Revenue and assessee are allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 22/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing)

86,15,73,783/- on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Nilesh S Utavadiya. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the contention of the assessee and thereafter to delete duplicate

THE DEPUTY COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.1,, RAJKOT vs. JAYESH HARAKHJI PATEL,, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the IT Act and as such, in the light of non-disputed fact that unexplained credit whether found in the bank statement of the assessee, who regularly maintain books of accounts. Ld. ITAT should have agreed to legal-plea of the Revenue that till onus with respect to identity, credit worthiness