MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

89 (SC)\n(v) Smt. Swaram Kanta vs. CIT, 44 Taxman 68 (P & H – HC)\n(vi) CIT vs. Hukam Singh, 276 ITR 347 ( P& H – HC)\n17. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the\nsubmissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents\nfurnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused

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

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.

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the act which in our considered opinion, is not correct in law. The assessee has shown I.T.A No. 168/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 6 Chandubhai R. Kaqthiriya. Vs. CIT(A) gross total income of Rs. 340 only for the Assessment Year and agricultural income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. AXWELL GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. Moreover, the assessing officer got satisfied with the three conditions, namely, identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness in respect of share capital to the tune of Rs. 10,07,86,700/-, out of total amount of Rs.11,40,55,000/-, and the same documents and evidences were submitted by the assessee, in respect of the addition

CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

Section 68 of the Act, i.e., to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the depositor (partner) as well as genuineness of transaction has duly been discharged. 10. However, without prejudice to the above, as regards to substantiate the source of funds in the hands of the partners as desired, it is submitted that the partners have separately vide notice

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

section 68 of the Act, to verify and enquire/ investigate the identity and credit-worthiness of the creditor (loans)/ shareholder and ascertain whether the transaction was genuine and whether these subscribers were creditworthy enough to make such huge investments or not. However, it appeared from the assessment record that the AO accepted the share capital/ loans without any verification

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

In the result, all appeals filed by the different assessee's and Revenue\nare allowed for statistical purposes

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

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

89 ITD 203 (Ahd.) (TM).” 11. The assessee in his submissions has reiterated his stand that no evidence was found at the time of search. Merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) additions cannot be made. He emphasised that there should be a corroborative evidence of disclosure made by the assessee. For buttressing his submissions

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

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

89 (SC)\n(v) Smt. Swaram Kanta vs. CIT, 44 Taxman 68 (P & H – HC)\n(vi) CIT vs. Hukam Singh, 276 ITR 347 ( P& H – HC)\n17. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the\nsubmissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents\nfurnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay). 6. It may be mentioned here that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under- "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

section 10(38) of The Act. Kiran Kothari Vs ITO [ITA 443/Kol/2017] "we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form PARTMENT of bills. contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. Neither these evidences