PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

undisclosed income, as such, as the\naddition of rent was made on estimate basis and it is well settled principle that\nno penalty can be levied on the addition made on account of mere estimates. In\n23\n==End of OCR for page 23==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nthis

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

68, 69A, 69B & 69C fall under Chapter VI. 12 8. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that addition under section 69 has to be separately made following the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT (supra) and no set off against business loss has to be allowed. 9. We have considered the rival

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income. Therefore, there was a material found during the course of search authorizing the AO to take cognizance under section 153A. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected. 23. In ground no.3, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs. 24. Brief facts of the case are that FDR of Rs.5.00

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

undisclosed income however did not allow the set off of losses incurred of Rs. 34,80,931/- in share transactions. It is also submitted by the assessee that the details of loss incurred by the assessee during the year under consideration was duly on record of the assessing officer. Segment wise loss incurred is as under: Further, all the transactions

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 271AAA have been fulfilled. It is also held that in respect of balance undisclosed income of Rs. 1,67,68

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

section 271AAA have been fulfilled. It is also held that in respect of balance undisclosed income of Rs. 1,67,68

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

undisclosed income, as such, as the\naddition of rent was made on estimate basis and it is well settled principle that\nno penalty can be levied on the addition made on account of mere estimates. In\n23\n==End of OCR for page 23==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nthis

REKHABEN JAYSUKHLAL GHODASARA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

undisclosed source and added in the total income under section\n68 of the Act and same was duly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) that Ld. AR\nsubmitted that section 68

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

undisclosed income, as such, as the\naddition of rent was made on estimate basis and it is well settled principle that\nno penalty can be levied on the addition made on account of mere estimates. In\n\n23\n\nthis connection reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of\nAllahabad has in the case

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

undisclosed income, as such, as the\naddition of rent was made on estimate basis and it is well settled principle that\nno penalty can be levied on the addition made on account of mere estimates. In\n23\n==End of OCR for page 23==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nthis

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

undisclosed income, as such, as the\naddition of rent was made on estimate basis and it is well settled principle that\nno penalty can be levied on the addition made on account of mere estimates. In\n23\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nthis connection reliance is placed on the decision