THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus nature of the transactions or receipt back of cash from M/s Terapanth Foods Pvt. Ltd. The purchases by the group concerns and sale by the assessee are duly vouched, paid for by account payee cheques, supported by audited books of accounts. It was further submitted that F.Y. 2008-09 is the first year of trading activity of export

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus nature of the transactions or receipt back of cash from M/s Terapanth Foods Pvt. Ltd. The purchases by the group concerns and sale by the assessee are duly vouched, paid for by account payee cheques, supported by audited books of accounts. It was further submitted that F.Y. 2008-09 is the first year of trading activity of export

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus nature of the transactions or receipt back of cash from M/s Terapanth Foods Pvt. Ltd. The purchases by the group concerns and sale by the assessee are duly vouched, paid for by account payee cheques, supported by audited books of accounts. It was further submitted that F.Y. 2008-09 is the first year of trading activity of export

GLOBAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Global Extrusions Private Limited. Vs. Pcit Jamnagar, Ca Govind Sonecha Taranjali Building, “S&A House”, Near Golden City, Jamnagar 361008 80Ft Road, Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section Police Headquarters, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm4319E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. (Cit)Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025

purchase transaction is backed up by supportive documentary evidences, the same nowhere remains bogus or unexplained in any case. Also, the Ld. AO has duly verified the records and evidences furnished before him during the course of Assessment Proceedings. Hence, Vide para 8 it is being contended referring the Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act that, the order

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

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

transferred in demat account even after one year of the purchase, what was the source of funding of the purchase of shares and whether any third party evidence exists to prove the genuineness of purchase transaction, etc. VII. Further, in the most recent judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee in the case

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

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

transferred in demat account even after one year of the purchase, what was the source of funding of the purchase of shares and whether any third party evidence exists to prove the genuineness of purchase transaction, etc. VII. Further, in the most recent judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee in the case

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

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

transferred in demat account even after one year of the purchase, what was the source of funding of the purchase of shares and whether any third party evidence exists to prove the genuineness of purchase transaction, etc. VII. Further, in the most recent judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee in the case

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

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

transferred in demat account even after one year of the purchase, what was the source of funding of the purchase of shares and whether any third party evidence exists to prove the genuineness of purchase transaction, etc. VII. Further, in the most recent judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee in the case

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)

bogus accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss. b. The assessee submitted copy of audit report, P & L account, Balance sheet of the said company, however, failed submit the reliable documents in respect of economic or financial justification for rise in the sale price of these shares. c. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee provided copy

SINGHVI TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHIDHAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transferred to\nand shall vest in the limited liability partnership without further assurance, act or\ndeed.\"\nTherefore, any legal proceeding initiated against the private limited company will\ncontinue against the LLP as it steps into the shoes of the company.\n7. Argument against the Contrary Position:\nIf the interpretation that the LLP is not liable for the previous legal proceedings

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

transfer /sale of\nthe impugned property, the assessee has stated that the deal did not\nmaterialize and therefore she had to return the amount of Satakhat to the\naforesaid persons by way of cheques as per the following particulars:\nSr. No. Name of person in whose favour cheque Cheque Date\nNo. is drawn\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n5.\nShri Anilsinh

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)

bogus LTCG and price ragging activity without having direct nexus or any concrete evidence to disprove the facts brought on record by the assessee. Even the lower authority failed to deal with the set of evidence already on record. Further, no evidence is brought on record by the order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed

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)

price of the share, it can be said that assessee received the penny stock gain in order to off-set the loss or to convert the unaccounted money into white money, and that was the reason that the Government has introduced Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The assessee received the bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) and that

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

transferred from the dematerialized account and received consideration through legitimate banking channels. Assessing officer did not have any independent source or evidence to show an agreement between the assessee and any other party to convert unaccounted money by taking the fictitious loss. The decision of assessing officer was unsupported by any material on record, and the finding was purely

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

transfer of shares\ntook place through D-mat account. Further, it has been mentioned that all details\nregarding the purchase/sale of shares i.e. evidence of purchase of shares, evidence\nof payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of\nbank statement, copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, copy of demat account\nstatement reflecting purchases, evidence

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

transfer of shares\ntook place through D-mat account. Further, it has been mentioned that all details\nregarding the purchase/sale of shares i.e. evidence of purchase of shares, evidence\nof payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of\nbank statement, copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, copy of demat account\nstatement reflecting purchases, evidence

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)

transferred from the dematerialized account and received consideration through legitimate banking channels. The assessing officer did not have any independent source or evidence to show an agreement between the assessee and any other party to convert unaccounted money by taking the fictitious loss. The decision of assessing officer was unsupported by any material on record, and the finding was purely