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

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

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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

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

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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

natural justice since an adjournment application dated 23.09.2025 was Radhika Jewellers filed which has been ignored and appeal order has been passed by the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC. The same is prayed for restoration. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in invoking provisions of section 45 (3) in case of transferee which is not permitted by statute, especially when

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)

natural justice. In this respect, it is stated that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee never requested for the said documents, in response to show cause notice, the assessee has requested for it. Furthermore, the details of investigation report and statements of key persons are mentioned in SCN. g. Further, the question of cross examination/verification of documents as said

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)

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, I confine myself to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Assessee. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the claim of long-term capital gain

SHRI VASANTRAI PURSOTAM KACHALIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, I confine myself to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the assessee. The solitary and main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that learned CIT(A) erred in making the disallowance on account of index cost of improvement at Rs.18,49,139/-, despite the fact that assessee

SHRI DIPAKKUMAR PARSOTAMDAS ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 435/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani Asanani Ito, Nfac, Delhi Prop. Jay Jalaram Enterprise, M. G. , M. G. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 Pan : Aecpa2955G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. D. Sr. Dr

capital gain on the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and therefore this issue

SHRI RAVI PARSOTAMBHAI ASANANI,VILLAGE JETPUR, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 434/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Income Tax Officer, Nfac, Delhi Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Prop., Jay Ambe Textile, M.G.Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Jetpur – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Pan/Gir No.: Amnpa7007Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain on the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and therefore this issue is not in dispute

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)

capital gain and has been earned by the assessee on account of trading in respect of the said shares. Merely because trading in the shares of the said company was suspended on the Stock Exchange, in absence of any material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sales of said shares was bogus, the Assessing Officer was not justified

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)

nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Assessee. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Assessee, as follows: (i) The order passed by the Ld. Fassessing officer as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section

BHARATKUMAR BAVACHANDBHAI BHUVA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)

capital gain without being referring the matter to the Ld. DVO referring the matter to the Ld. DVO for the purpose of valuation. 6. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s.250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was arbitrary, That the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s.250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was arbitrary, That the order passed

MAVANI NILESH HARISHBHAI HUF,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital gains was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 35 of the 1922 Act. The revenue was right in contending that once the ITO had jurisdiction to make the order under section 35 of the 1922 Act the rectification order should be deemed to be referable to the exercise of the power under that provision

MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

natural justice and therefore the\nheavy addition made of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain is required

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

natural justice. 2. The learned CIT Appeal has passed order ex parte without adjudicating on merits on the issues raised before him which is bad on facts and also in law and ought to be set aside to learned CIT Appeal. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds (i) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s.148

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

justice, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. (iii)The Id. PCIT erred on facts as also in law in passing order u/s. 263 of the Act, without considering the submission dated 05.03.2024 made against the notice u/s. 263 of the Act. (iv)The Id. PCIT erred on facts as also in law in passing order

KISHORCHANDRA MOHANLAL KHAMBHAYATA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

capital gain, which is mandatory and legitimately allowable to the assessee. 6. All the grounds of appeal raised hereinabove are without prejudice to one another. 4.1. At the outset of the hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us various documents as additional evidence filed for the first time before us and thereby requested the matter

NARMADABEN RAJIVBHAI UGHREJA,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

Natural Justice are violated.\n2. Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in making addition of Rs. 8,00,000 towards\nunexplained money, without considering facts and circumstances of the case.\n3. Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in making addition of Rs. 44,44,504/- towards\nLong-term Capital Gains

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

capital gain and has been earned by the assessee on account of trading in respect of the said shares. Merely because trading in the shares of the said company was suspended on the Stock Exchange, in absence of any material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sales of said shares was bogus, the Assessing Officer was not justified