THE DCIT, MORBI CIRCLE, , MORBI vs. M/S. CLAYRIS CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 287/Rjt/2018 With Co No. 28/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 D.C.I.T, M/S. Clayris Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Opp. Soriso Ceramics, Morbi. B.H Fame Ceramics Pvt., 8A-Nh, Morbi.

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unsecured loans of (1) Rs. 45 ,90,000/ from Dhiman Trading Pvt Ltd and (2

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 IT Act cannot be extended to noting in rough notebook which is not books of account as defined in section 2(12A) of the IT Act. There was no case for making the addition u/s68 of the Act on the basis of jotting in impounded documents. Further, the AO has made the addition of admitted income

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)

90,501/ u/s 68 of the act. Based on the documents placed on records, the Ld. AO has not recorded any reason as to why the addition can be made under section 68 of the act and on what reasons and why the evidence placed on record which are the third-party evidence are not considered. 7. Based

SMT. CHANDRIKABEN NARANBHAI BHORANIA,MORBI vs. ITO, WARD-1 , MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,49,110/-. The assessee in the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act has disclosed the cash on hand as on 31 March 2015 at Rs. 4,98,040/- which was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thus the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

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

section 68 of the Act in respect of (1) equity share capital of Rs.8,60,95,000/-and (2) unsecured loan of Rs.2,33,90

SPOLO CERAMIC PVT LTD,MORBI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, MORBI, MORBI

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.953/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Spolo Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Vs. Survey No. 203/P1, Nr. Amardham, Ring Road, Matel Road, At. Dhuva, Dist. Rajkot - 360001 Morbi - 363622 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxcs0845B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03 /2025

90,653/-) During the course of assessment proceeding, various details / information were called for vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act in response to which all the required and relevant details had been furnished electronically through "e-assessment" proceeding from time to time. Further in assessment proceedings, the AO alleged that out of the various shareholders/lender from whom

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

section 68 of the Acting respect of share capital of Rs. 15,15,02,000/- out of total of Rs.19,99,00,000/- and thereby setting aside the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.12.17. The order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. CIT is totally unjustified on facts as also

TILARA POLYPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED,SHAPAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act, and for balance amount of Rs. 78,90,000/- ( Rs.1,50,00,000-Rs. 71,10,000), the assessing officer held that assessee has explained the identity, genuineness, creditworthiness, of share applicants, therefore assessing officer did not make the addition to that extent. The ld CIT(A) noticed that

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct-16 1,23,18,934\n3,64,120 4,26,013\n7,90

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

68,307 4,95,238\n9,63,445\n6,34,929 6,34,929 1,22,97,806\nSep-16 1,22,97,806\n3,57,815 3,78,127\n7,35,942\n7,14,814 7,14,814 1,23,18,934\nOct-16 1,23,18,934\n3,64,120 4,26,013\n7,90

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, MORBI vs. M/S FAIZ INDS.,, WANKANER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Faiz Industries Morbi. B-1, National Highway Lalpar, Tal. Wankaner अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 31.1.2017 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2013-14. 2. Solitary Ground Raised In The Appeal Reads As Under:

section 145 of the Act and valuing closing stock and inventories as prescribed under the Act and no error or defects has been pointed out by the lower authorities in this behalf. Thus, the assessee contended that the proposed addition was unjustified. However, the ld.AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee. He maintained his view of deliberate

M/S. LADO CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,BELA (RANGPAR), DIST. MORBI. vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 of the Act in respect of (1) equity share capital of Rs.1,39,90,000/- and (2

M/S. EMBOZA GRANITO PVT. LTD. ,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-3 , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

90,99,107 on which, it claimed depreciation of Rs. 6,25,34,642/- and additional depreciation u/s 32AC of the Act for Rs. 5,10,68,759/- only. On question by the AO, the assessee only furnished ledger copy without having supporting documents such as bills, voucher, installation and commissioning certificate. However, the AO allowed the claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

68 087 77 55 982 1 73 60 002 1 93 45 151 (Increase )/Decrease in stock Opening stock By product 1 28 206 2 86 589 Work in process 5 86 46 481 6 63 78 651 Finished goods 1 11 79 254 77 63 967 Total 6 99 53 941 7 44 29 207 Closing stock By product

SHRI DINESHBHAI CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

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

2. First we take up ITA No.518/RJT/2012. 3. Sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.81,55,000/- with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 29.12.2006 declaring

SHRI DINESHBHAI CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

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

2. First we take up ITA No.518/RJT/2012. 3. Sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.81,55,000/- with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 29.12.2006 declaring

SHRI RAMESH CHHANABHAI KACCHADIYA (PATEL),,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.518 and 520/RJT/2012 are allowed, and ITA

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

2. First we take up ITA No.518/RJT/2012. 3. Sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.81,55,000/- with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 29.12.2006 declaring

SHRI VAJUBHAI N. KANANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, AMRELI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 29/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani The I.T.O., बनाम/ Prop. Of M/S. Krishna Ward-2(4), Amreli Vs. Construction, At – Malsika, Tal. Dhari, Amreli "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afppk0597L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Written Submission (None) ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 05/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 20/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 25.04.2013 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-2(4), Amreli Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita No. 29/Rjt/2020 (Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani Vs. Ito) A. Y. 2007-08 - 2- 2. None Appeared At The Time Of Call On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Ld. Dr Appeared & Made His Submission In Favour Of The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below In Imposing Penalty For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

2. None appeared at the time of call on behalf of the assessee. However, the Ld. DR appeared and made his submission in favour of the orders passed by the authorities below in imposing penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is that the assessee, an individual, engaged in the business