ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, 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

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

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

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

price was also verified and audited by excise authorities, copy of cost sheet of every part as required by assessing officer were submitted by the assessee. 16. Therefore, assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the Rudrapur industrial undertaking is an independent unit/undertaking and not an extension or splitting of existing unit satisfying the meaning mentioned u/s 80-IC. Further

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)

price. As per IT Act, any purchase in cash above Rs. 20,000 (now 10,000) is not permitted. Buyers across India deposit the cash purchase- amount into the bank-account of self-styled Angadiya/shroff, who remitted cash to seller, after deducting commission. In certain instances, such Bank-accounts were also used for layering and delayering of funds

KARANBHAI BHARATBHAI GANGDEV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

price declared by the assessee in the return of income. Karanbhai Bharatbhai Gangdev vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the activity of job work of Marble cutting and Kota Stone. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have sold its factory

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA J.BHIMANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal is dismissed

section 49 which implies that the cost of acquisition of the asset in the hands of the retiring partners should be the market value on the date of retirement and not the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it. Since the consideration of the transfer of collective land of "R.AJasani & Co." to individual members has been

MAYURBHAI JAYSUKHLAL SHAH,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 319/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Mayurbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 601, Cross Way, P.N. Marg, Income Tax, Jamnagar Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax.Pcit, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afgps1754J (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transferred from demat on 19.12.2012. Source of acquisition of shares of Sree Leathers Ltd is the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, received on 17.03.2010 from KDA Associates as Loans and Advances and for which details and evidences were also submitted before the lower authorities. The above said fact was duly confirmed and established by the banker of Sree Leather

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

price being Rs.100/-, out of which Rs.80/- is the disclosed sales while Rs.20/- is the suppressed sales). The assessee is in contact with the sellers and the purchasers. Since the purchasers are bound by sec.40A (3) and other provisions of I.T. Act by virtue of which it is not permissible for them to make payment of about Rs.20

RAJSHANTI METALS PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 176/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Rajshanti Metals Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of B-42, Gidc, Vs. Income Tax, Shankar Tekri, Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

108 (Bom), discussed the law on this aspect in length in the following manner: “The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, must be based on materials on the record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials