SHRI VISHAL MEHTA ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

transfer at another location, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by Buyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such deposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion whereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

transfer at another location, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by Buyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such deposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion whereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

SHRI VISHAL MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1) (2) , RAJKOT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

transfer at another location, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by Buyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such deposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion whereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

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

transfer at another location, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by Buyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such deposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion whereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

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)

transfer at another location, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by Buyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such deposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion whereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIR.-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S CAST & BLOWER CO. (GUJARAT) P. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 750/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

price of the land in question was agreed at Rs.2,57,00,000/- out of which Rs.1,71,25,000/- was paid on various dates in various installments aggregating to Rs.171.25 Lakhs in cash. It was also seen from the statement of Mr. Dineshbhai Pedhadia, Director of the Company that the assessee wanted to purchase the land for the factory

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in its hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 84,93,54,606/-, which is added to the assessee's\nreturned income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing

SOLO STEEL TECH,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transfer at another\nlocation, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by\nBuyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such\ndeposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion\nwhereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

PARAS RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT - 1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

transfer at another\nlocation, earning commission on such transaction. There is no Invoice/Bill accepted by\nBuyer on supplies by Seller in these cases, or in other words, there is no basis of such\ndeposit and discounting of cash. In a similar fashion, DGCEI detected GST evasion\nwhereby the declared price of Tiles was lower than the actual sales price

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

unexplained cash\nbelonging to the assessee, and tax the same in his hands. The total of cash\ndeposits made into the above mentioned bank accounts for the year under\nconsideration, runs to Rs 4,92,45,263/- for account No. 015305001905\nand Rs. 10,37,27,193/- for account No. 015305003488, aggregating to\nRs.15,29,72,456/-, which was added