BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) The Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts

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

natural justice, lack of seizure of cash and jewellery etc. He also\ndistinguished the case laws citied by the assessee stating that the assessee is neither an\nAngadia nor a Shroff.\n(vii) Thereafter in para.5.6 Ld.CIT(A) has considered that the cash deposits in the bank a/c of\nthe assessee is turnover of the assessee. On this in para.5.7

SHRI BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Transfer (Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it, and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute Resolution Panel may, before issuing any directions referred to in sub-section (5), - (a) make such further

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows:\n(1) The Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

transfer of stakes, then this would have come in the statement of Shri Nikhil Patel,\nwho had spontaneously stated about Kuldeep Rathod being replaced by Shri Malay\nMehta.\n12.3 It is further contended that, Differential amount of Rs. 11,58,08,110/- was claimed\nto be contributed by Shri Jamnadas Patel [who is a partner of Decora Housing LLP]\nand

M/S. KANDLA ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LTD.,VILLAGE DEVALIYA, TAL. ANJAR(KUTCH) vs. ADD. CIT, GANDHIDHAM RANGE,, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of Arm’s Length Pricing u/s. 92CA of the Act. The Ld. TPO determined the Arm’s Length Price of the specified domestic transactions and recommended an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,89,74,894/- vide order dated 31-10-2017. After receipt of the TPO’s order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

natural justice or without application of mind would also attract the Invocation of power u/s.263. In fact, while justifying the order of the Commissioner u/s.263(l) the Hon.Supreme Court highlighted that the CIT had set aside the order for lack of inquiry and for non-application of mind. The Hon.Court also relied on the decision of Ram Pyari Deri Saraogi

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

nature.\nHowever, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the\ncontroversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this\nbackground, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as\nAssessee, as follows:\n(1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

nature.\nHowever, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the\ncontroversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this\nbackground, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as\nAssessee, as follows:\n(1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may bej shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; Page

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

justice, the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee and reasons recorded for the re-opening of the assessment have also been supplied and discussed in the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and in show cause notice from time to time.\n\nIssues Involved\n\nIssue Of Accepting On-Money-\n\n10. The seized material

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

justice, the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee and reasons recorded for the re-opening of the assessment have also been supplied and discussed in the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and in show cause notice from time to time.\n\nIssues Involved\n\nIssue Of Accepting On-Money-\n\n10. The seized material

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

justice, the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee and reasons recorded for the re-opening of the assessment have also been supplied and discussed in the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and in show cause notice from time to time.\n\nIssues Involved\n\nIssue Of Accepting On-Money-\n\n10. The seized material

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

justice, the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee have been supplied and discussed in the notices issued uls 142(1) of the Act. 6. Then, after assessing officer, examined the various issues involved during the year. The assessing officer noticed that there are unaccounted receipts against sale of units of the project Trinity Towers. "Trinity Towers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

justice, the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee have been supplied and discussed in the notices issued uls 142(1) of the Act. 6. Then, after assessing officer, examined the various issues involved during the year. The assessing officer noticed that there are unaccounted receipts against sale of units of the project Trinity Towers. "Trinity Towers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 539 To 542/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20 To 2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing)

justice, the images of original seized material pertaining to the assessee have been supplied and discussed in the notices issued uls 142(1) of the Act. 6. Then, after assessing officer, examined the various issues involved during the year. The assessing officer noticed that there are unaccounted receipts against sale of units of the project Trinity Towers. "Trinity Towers