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

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

131(1A) of the Act has explained lucidly that these sheet contain detail such as flat no, name of the buyers/ booking persons and details of cash / cheque received and to be received against sale /booking of respective unit. He further explained that sheets inventoried as page 20-39 are more updated and having more amount. Beside the above, during

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MORBI CIRCLE,, MORBI vs. M/S. ZEALTOP GRANITO PVT. LTD., MORBI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Rjt/2018 With Co No.17/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2014-2015 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" D.C.I.T., M/S Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Survey No.596, 8/A, Morbi. National Highway, Old Ghuma Road, Morbi-2. Pan: Aaacz3126B

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A), has erred in reducing the addition made by the AO of unaccounted cash received through angadia of ITA No. 31/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.17/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 2 suppressed sale from Rs.3,60,58.494/- to Rs.11,71,901/- thus allowing relief of Rs.3

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 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 DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

transfer /sale of the impugned property, the assessee has stated that the deal did not materialize and therefore she had to return the amount of Satakhat to the aforesaid persons by way of cheques as per the following particulars: Sr. Name of person in whose favour cheque Cheque Date Amount No. is drawn No. 1. Shri Anilsinh Chandubha Jadeja

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

131 of the Act, and\nthey have replied to the Assessing Officer, with documentary evidences,\ntherefore, no adverse conclusion can be drawn in respect of other 14\npersons, as the Assessing Officer never summoned to these 14 persons and\nnever asked any details and documents and information from them. The\nAssessing Officer has not summoned, during the proceedings under section

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

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 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

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