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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

section 132(4) is an admissible evidence, it could not be ignored. More so, this declaration is based on the discovery of certain notings on a piece of paper. The ld.AO made addition of Rs.80,69,186/-. The appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief. The ld.CIT(A) has concurred with the AO. The relevant finding

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

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MUMBAI vs. ATUL SHIVDAS GANATRA, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the aforesaid amount which comes under the head “suppliers refundable deposit” is the amount retained / withheld being 1.96% of the purchases made by the assessee with a view to ensure

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

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

96,20 26.75 2,57,335 Rajesh Steel Nanda 15.04.2011 12,630 28 3,53,640 Rajesh Steel Nanda 05.05.2011 6,440 27 1,73,880 Rajesh Steel Nanda 10.05.2011 6,440 31.5 2,02,860 Rajesh Steel Brahmi 18.05.2011 1,435 32 45,920 Fabricators 14,315 12,92,615/- 5. The AO further found that above mentioned suppliers

SHRI JORUBHA JILUBHA JADEJA,VILLAGE ZANKHAR POST VIDINAR TALUKA LALPUR, DIST JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. 4.2. The appellant raised grounds of appeal on the issue of addition of Rs. 3,87,935/- made u/s. 69C of the Act on account of notional expenditure for earning agricultural income. Upon perusal of the facts of case and assessment order, it is observed that the A.O. brought no evidence on record with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RAJESHBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

96,330/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs.10,39,500/- under section 69A on account of alleged on-money payment, Rs.1,68

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

96,64,696/- opening WIP Rs. 1,68,68,728/-) which includes construction labour expense of Rs. 1,31,16,680/- Reti Fera Expense of Rs. 42,54,271/- and also WIP of Rs. 3,66,32,345/-. Therefore, assessing officer noticed Page 4 of 13 ITA No. 827/Rjt/2024 & 274/RJT/2025 Shanti Developers that the explanation furnished by the assesse

SHANTI DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

96,64,696/- opening WIP Rs. 1,68,68,728/-) which includes construction labour expense of Rs. 1,31,16,680/- Reti Fera Expense of Rs. 42,54,271/- and also WIP of Rs. 3,66,32,345/-. Therefore, assessing officer noticed Page 4 of 13 ITA No. 827/Rjt/2024 & 274/RJT/2025 Shanti Developers that the explanation furnished by the assesse

SHRI NAVDA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 604/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Road, Junagadh, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Vs. Gujarat-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat – 362610 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 617/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Income Tax Officer, Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Road, Junagadh, Vs. Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat - 362610 Gujarat-362001 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section, it is for us to decide which is the proper provision of the law under which such an order should have been made.” Therefore, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI NAVDA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED, VANTHALI JUNAGADH GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 604/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Road, Junagadh, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Vs. Gujarat-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat – 362610 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 617/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Income Tax Officer, Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Road, Junagadh, Vs. Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat - 362610 Gujarat-362001 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section, it is for us to decide which is the proper provision of the law under which such an order should have been made.” Therefore, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the return

PALLAV,JAMNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, JAMNAGAR

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

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

96,670/- was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee, carried the matter, in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of ITA No.473/RJT/2024 – A.Y.- 2017-18 Pallav vs. DCIT

THE ITO, WARD 1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S PAVAN CONSTRUCTION CO, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act does not arise. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. The second issue raised by the Revenue is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- made by the AO on account of undervaluation of closing stock. 10. The assessee in its balance sheet has shown