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

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

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

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases\nwhere the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus\nlies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find\nsupport & guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in\nthe commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar reported

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

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases where the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus lies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar reported

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

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases\nwhere the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus\nlies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find\nsupport & guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in\nthe commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar reported

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

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases where the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus lies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar reported

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

131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases where the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus lies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar reported

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

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

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

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

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

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

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

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

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

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