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 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 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 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

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

PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), RAJKOT

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Cash credits - Assessment year 1983-84- Assessee-co-operative society was engaged in business of banking - Assessing Officer made addition in assessee's hand as income from undisclosed

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.”

income under section 68 of the Act. Further, as per the PCIT, the AO should have also disallowed the entire agricultural expenses of " 11.77 lakhs on the ground that since cotton has not been grown therefore agricultural expenses had also not be incurred by the assessee. Therefore, as per the PCIT the entire gross receipts of the agricultural produce should

M/S. DHARTI ESTATE,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. The ITAT Jaipur in the case of Hari NarainGattani [2021] 123 taxmann.com 8 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where assessee surrenders undisclosed income

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.

Income from undisclosed sources-Addition under section 68Credit in bank passbook---Bank statement is not considered as books of account, therefore, any sum found credited in bank passbook could not be treated as an unexplained cash credit under section 68

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68 of the Act. Hence the AO added the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has also confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The learned