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

unexplained investment being advances given to friend and relatives on the alleged ground that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim with documentary evidences.The addition confirmed is totally unjustified and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. [This is Assessee's ground No. 4 in IT(SS) No. 09/RJT/2019] 4. We note that above mentioned

SMT. JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDERKUMAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer from GMCB. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). In view of the above the AO treated the entire sum of deposit in the bank for Rs. 2,66,13,710/- as income from undisclosed sources and added

SMT. CHANDRAKALA M. JUNEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer from GMCB. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). In view of the above the AO treated the entire sum of deposit in the bank for Rs. 2,66,13,710/- as income from undisclosed sources and added

THE ITO, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDER,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer from GMCB. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). In view of the above the AO treated the entire sum of deposit in the bank for Rs. 2,66,13,710/- as income from undisclosed sources and added

K B JWELLERS,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO WARD 1 GANDHIDHAM, GADHIDHAM

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

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

transferred for melting and out of which 24 carat gold received was of 9655.903 grams means there was a loss of 2402.73 grams. Same way Gold ornaments of 18 carat was sent for melting and out of which 24 carat gold received was of 362.800 grams and there was a loss of 190.091 grams. Thus total loss due to closer

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

unexplained money, respectively without considering the fact that the assessee duly furnished documentary evidence from the third party including bank statements and confirmation from the loan party, substantiating the sources of the investments made for the purchase of immovable property (shop). The assessee has verifiable and lawful sources for the investments, which stand fully explained as received from M/s Parekh

KIRAN HARUBHAI DANGAR,JUNAGADH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RAJKOT

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

price, I have reason to believe that this amount is unexplained investment and need to the brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for the AY 2012-13. Page 3 of 8 Kiran Harubhai Dangar vs. Assessing Officer 8. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE vs. MARUTI ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. It(Ss)A No Assessment Assessee Name Respondent Name No. Year 1. 12/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Chetan Dhirajlal Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Pan.:Afkpr4637P 2. 13/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Nikhilbhai Jamnadas Of Income-Tax, Central Patel Circle-1, Rajkot, P-1, Decora Highland, “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Avadh Main Road, Opp. Floor, M.G. Road, Classic Party Plot Rajkot- Rajkot-360 001 360 005 Pan No.: Agipp 1294 K 3. 17/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Shri Dhirajlal Ravji Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abopr5408A 19 & 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner Shri Rohitkumar Maganlal 4. 20/Rjt/2024 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Sanepara Circle-1, Rajkot, Kangshiyani Road, Opp. “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Sundaram Vidhyalaya, Floor, M.G. Road, Dholra Chokdi, Kothariya, Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 004 Panno.:Aaopp4848H 5. 59-60/Rjt/2023 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Decora West Hills, Near Classic Party Plot, Opp. Circle-1, Rajkot, Kalawa Road, Rajkot-360 “Amruta Estate” 2Nd 005 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abdfm3140K 6. 228/Rjt/2023 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise Of Income-Tax, Central

transfer of title and possession of property) instead of year of receipts without appreciating the facts, evidences found and seized during the course of search and circumstances of the peculiar case. 4. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

investments. (o) Your Honor will appreciate the fact that, the noting in rough note book cannot be regarded as books of account within the meaning of section 2(12A) of the Act. The casual noting in rough diary are dumb documents having no evidential value. The reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements”. 10. The ld.AO has submitted his remand

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, 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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE 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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, 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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, , 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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

BUILDCON CREATIONS LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, 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)

price received by the seller of the units for which the seller has already incurred the cost in order to acquire or process the inventory. Therefore, it is the realization of excess consideration over the cost incurred which should be assessed as profit or income. In other words, profit component embedded in the sales could be treated as income

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

unexplained cash.\n12. In response to various show-cause notices, the assessee submitted its reply\nbefore the assessing officer which is reproduced by the assessing officer in the\nassessment order page Nos. 10 to 15. The assessee stated that no incriminating\ndocuments indicating any unaccounted investment were found in their\npossession. Therefore, notings and jottings in the excel sheet remain