ASHVIN DINESHBHAI JADAV,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133(6) of the Act, (inquiry letter) to the agent i.e. M/s Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd., calling the details of the transactions carried out by the assessee during the period under review. In response, M/s Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd submitted its reply on 21/08/2017. Perusal of the same threw light over the fact that assessee has entered into

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

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

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

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 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 68 of the Act.\"\nHowever, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of\nthe assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity,\nPage | 14\nITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13\nKrushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja\ngenuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made\naddition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.\n24.\nOn appeal, by the assessee

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 is as under:- "Provided that when the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interest) and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee- company shall be deemed

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

94,85,000/- ( Rs.2,33,90,000+ Rs.8,60,95,000) unsecured loan and share capital received from 29 persons. The assessee had submitted that it has furnished all the details during the course of assessment proceedings, duly supported by the Income Tax Returns, with annual accounts for 3 years and the bank statements of all the parties, except

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

94,000/- into bank account maintained with Union Bank & Rs.2,42,23,000/- into bank account maintained with Punjab & Sindh Bank during the demonetisation period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The PCIT issued show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 17.01.2022 and called for the said details and asked to explain as to why the said amount

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

94,413/- made on account of\ncash/premium payment reflected in STCSH Account.\n[ This is Revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019, for AY 2010-11, ground no. 4 in\nITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-\n13, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

94,413/- made on account of\ncash/premium payment reflected in STCSH Account.\n[ This is Revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019, for AY 2010-11, ground no. 4 in\nITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-\n13, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019

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

7\nITA Nos. 59 & 76/RJT/2018 (Jayesh Harakhji\nPatel & IT(SS)A Nos. 86 to 89 & 97 to 99/Rjt/2018\n(Ravi V. Hirani)\n5. Proceedings before Ld.CIT(A):\na. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal which primarily\nrelate to addition by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash deposits.\nb. Ld.CIT (A) has passed a common

KATARIA SNACK PELLETS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.468/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम 510, Gidc, Metoda Kalawad Road Rajkot Rajkot-360021, Gujarat Vs. Pan : Aafck2028L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

7% following 3 year and 5% after that. It is only mentioned that the terminal value is calculated using the Gordon Growth model. However, Gordon Growth Model also require some inputs on the basis of which gave terminal value. In the present case, valuer has not submitted the detailed calculation in this regard. The exorbitant value of share computed

ANSHOYABEN BHAGVANJIBHAI BHOJANI,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 13/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi Shreeji Nagar, B/H. Chhatralaya Road, Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Vibhag, B/H New Bus Stand, Morbi, J.K. Chamber, National Highway-8-A, Gujarat 363641 At- Lalpar, Morbi Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brnpb6281R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

7 of 10 Anshoyaben Bhagvanjibhai Bhojani paragraph no.78 by giving example for Assessment Year 20172018 for obtaining approval of the specified authority by observing that "...three years time limit for Assessment Year 2017-2018 falls for completion on March 31, 2021 which falls during the time period of March 20,2020 and March, 31, 2021 contemplated under section

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

94,413/- made on account of cash/premium payment reflected in STCSH Account. [ This is Revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019, for AY 2010-11, ground no. 4 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012- 13, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019

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

94,413/- made on account of cash/premium payment reflected in STCSH Account. [ This is Revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019, for AY 2010-11, ground no. 4 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012- 13, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019

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

94,413/- made on account of cash/premium payment reflected in STCSH Account. [ This is Revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019, for AY 2010-11, ground no. 4 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012- 13, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

7 12. On the other hand, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (Ld.CIT-DR) for the Revenue submitted that first of all, there is a non-compliance, on the part of the assessee, before the assessing officer, as well as before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, all these appeals should be restored back to the file of the assessing