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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer, nowhere, in the assessment order, stated that these documentary evidences, submitted by the assessee, are bogus. 17. We note that there are three conditions to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act viz: (i) Shares were purchased

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S. RANG CERA COAT, , MORBI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Rang Cera Coat, Ward-4, 8-A, National Highway, Morbi Morbi Pan :Aalfr 1616 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023

Section 131 of the Act had evidentiary value. The learned CIT(A) was convinced with the explanation of the assessee that the entire purchases could not be disallowed as being bogus noting the fact that being a trader and the sales having not been doubted, there was no question of corresponding purchases in relation to the said sales having

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

38 taxmann.com 402 (Guj HC): in this case it is held that: "Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessment Additions to income [Purchases from market] - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessing Officer made addition of entire amount of purchase on ground that concerned suppliers had never supplied goods as named by assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal I.T.A

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

38 taxmann.com 402 (Guj HC): in this case it is held that: "Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessment Additions to income [Purchases from market] - Assessment year 2003-04 - Assessing Officer made addition of entire amount of purchase on ground that concerned suppliers had never supplied goods as named by assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal I.T.A

SHREE N H ENTERPRISES,RAJKOT vs. PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 227/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree N. H. Enterprises बनाम/ Pcit-1, D-101, Golden Portico Apartment, Dr. Income Tax Office, Vs. Madhapar Circle, Morbi Road, Rajkot- Rajkot-360007 360007 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Adlfs7019K "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 20/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

section 263 of the Act, to revise the assessment order should be quashed. 4 Shree N. H. Enterprises vs. PCIT 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessing officer, disallowed 25% of bogus purchases, however, as per Ld. PCIT 100% purchases, which were bogus, should have been disallowed by the assessing officer, therefore

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)

38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

bogus loss was to be deleted\"\n(iii)\nShri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel,[2024] 162 taxmann.com 892 (Gujarat)\n“Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company\nwas suspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

Section 10(38) of the Act, which are reproduced below: ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

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

Section 10(38) of the Act, which are reproduced below: ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

PRITIBEN JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer, nowhere, in the assessment order, stated that these documentary evidences, submitted by the assessee, are bogus. 17. We note that there are three conditions to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act viz: (i) Shares were purchased

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10 (38) of the Act, however, the fact is that assessee has never claimed the exemption under section10(38) of the Act. Besides, no primary enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law, therefore, reassessment order

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10 (38) of the Act, however, the fact is that assessee has never claimed the exemption under section10(38) of the Act. Besides, no primary enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law, therefore, reassessment order

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

10(38) of the Act by you is derived from penny stocks and it should be treated as your undisclosed income u/s 69A of the IT Act. Here, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings grossly erred in not treating sale of penny stock shares of M/s GLOBAL SECUR of Rs. 5,28,540/- as your undisclosed income