SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

losses. Moreover, the said transaction is also\nnot covered u/s 115QA of the Act as the capital reduction is carried out for NIL\nconsideration. Considering these facts and circumstances, we allow ground No.2\nraised by the assessee.\n29. Now we shall take ground No.4 raised by the assessee, which relates to\ndeduction under section

RADHIKA JEWELLERS,RAJKOT vs. DY.CIT 2 (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Loss sharing sharing ratio ratio(%) (%) 1 Shri. Ashok Kumar Zinnawadia 24 24 2 Shri. Hareshbhai Mathuradas Zinzuwada 20 27 Page 2 of 11 Radhika Jewellers 3 Mrs. Hansaben Mathuradas Zinzuwadia 7 7 4 Mrs. Kavitaben AshokKumar Zinzuwadia 7 7 5 Mrs. Hetal Hereshbhai Zinzuwadia 7 7 6 Shri Darshit Hereshbhai Zinzuwadia 7 7 7 Minor Jenil Hereshbhai Zinzuwadia

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)

carried out by the department. The assessing officer lost sight of the fact that the enquiry did not commence from that of the assessee and more particularly the name of the assessee did not feature in the investigation report. Therefore, the assessing officer was bound to cause an enquiry by calling upon the assessee to explain and justify the genuineness

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

carried out by the assessing officer on the\nissue under consideration and based on the evidence gathered,assessing\nofficer has taken a plausible view, which at any rate cannot be called as an\nun-sustainable view.\n20.We note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of\nJagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 247, held that where

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

carried out by the assessing officer on the\nissue under consideration and based on the evidence gathered,assessing\nofficer has taken a plausible view, which at any rate cannot be called as an\nun-sustainable view.\n20.We note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of\nJagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 247, held that where

AMIBEN RAJESHKUMAR PUNATAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.24/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar, बनाम/ Ito, Ashish, 41-New Jagnath Plot, Vs Ward – 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001(Gujarat) Rajkot "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahrpp4181F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

loss by Various beneficiaries. Further, the entry operators are charging @ 3 to 5% in Cash on net pre-arranged bogus LTCG or STCL. On going through the case records as well as return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the assessee had shown long term capital gain

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)

carried out by the assessee through ANS Private Limited who is SEBI registered Stockbroker. The details of the transactions are as follows: We find that assessee submitted a copy of Contract Note & Ledger, which is placed at paper book page no.32 to 37.A copy of bank statements reflecting the Sale of Shares i.e. Receipts as Sameer Shah HUF, mentioned

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

loss by Assessing Officer did not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income - Held, yes - Whether since there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income, penalty imposed by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes” 3.2. The Ld.CIT

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

carried out by the assessing officer on the issue under consideration\nand based on the evidence gathered, assessing officer has taken a plausible view,\nwhich at any rate cannot be called as an un-sustainable view.\n20.\nWe note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of\nJagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 247, held that

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)

loss. The decision of assessing officer was unsupported by any material on record, and the finding was purely on an assumption basis. Thus, no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal, and the same was to be upheld. We note that the assessee submitted the following documents and evidences, before the assessing officer viz: (i) copy

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

loss. The decision of assessing officer was unsupported by any material on record, and the finding was purely on an assumption basis. Thus, no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal, and the same was to be upheld.” 19. We note that in the following decisions, of various Co-ordinate Benches, of ITAT, wherein the same

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

forward contracts with banks for the purpose of hedging the loss due to fluctuation of foreign exchange while implementing the export contracts. Such transaction in foreign exchanges were truly identical to the assessee’s regular course of business and hence the loss is not a speculative one under Section 43(5) of the Act; the same is incidental

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

forward contracts with banks for the purpose of hedging the loss due to fluctuation of foreign exchange while implementing the export contracts. Such transaction in foreign exchanges were truly identical to the assessee’s regular course of business and hence the loss is not a speculative one under Section 43(5) of the Act; the same is incidental

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

forward contracts with banks for the purpose of hedging the loss due to fluctuation of foreign exchange while implementing the export contracts. Such transaction in foreign exchanges were truly identical to the assessee’s regular course of business and hence the loss is not a speculative one under Section 43(5) of the Act; the same is incidental

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

carried on by me during the previous year are as under: I am earning income from share of profit, interest and remuneration from the partnership firm Parmeshwar Impex, income from other sources i.e. bank interest, PPF interest, FD interest, deposit interest, long term capital gain, dividend income and income from business and profession. Detailed computation income. I am enclosing herewith

ALKA RAJEN SHAH,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (1) (1) , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiassessment Year: (2019-20) Alka Rajen Shah, Income Tax Officer, 59, Silver Sand B/H. Parijat Party Plot Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot, Vs. Off: 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot- 360 Income Tax Officer, M.G. 005 Road, Beside Girnar Pan : Aykps 4510 K Cinema, Rajkot-360 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By. : Shri Raju Manek, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr

gain/ Long term capital loss by claiming of Rs.28,06,614/-, which is bad on facts and also in law which ought to be deleted.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly for 25 days. The learned Counsel adverted

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

carried the matter in appeal before ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that assessee has claimed credit for the entire TDS amounting to Rs. 18,96,225/-, which substantiates that the corresponding income is solely attributable to him. Furthermore, as observed from the AO's order, the assessee

ABDULKADAR HAJIAHMED VADIWALA,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (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

capital gain arising on sale of immovable properties during Financial Year (FY) 2015-16. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 16/03/2023, accepting the returned income of the assessee. 4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( in short “Ld.PCIT”), has exercised

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143