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

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

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty looking into the facts of the instant case. The assessee’s contention is that the land sold by him was beyond distance of 5 km from Gondal, and hence, the said land was an agricultural land as on the date of sale (as on 08.03.2007). The assessee’s contention was that the Assessing Officer imposed capital gains

SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

gain of Rs, 51,83,487/- and penalty u/s 271(l)(c) was initiaed. The impugned penalty has been levied with respect to this addition. During penalty proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings the assessee has contended that she was under the impression that the said land was agricultural land and therefore a non capital

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 6. The assessee carves to add, amend, alter and delete any of the above ground of appeals.” 3. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that during

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

Penalty For concealment of income (Bona fide claim) - Assessee declared an income as short term capital gain Assessing Officer, however

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

capital gain of Rs. 1,90,574/- as business income of the assessee by adding to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO also initiated penalty

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

capital gain of Rs 66,78,350/- is against\nthe documents available on records and therefore the heavy addition made of\nRs 66,78,350/-requires to be deleted.\n08. That the appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of Income\nas well as not concealed and Income and therefore the penalty

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) © of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant denies his liability to the same. 7. During the course of Assessment the appellant has submitted all the documents related to his status of NRI and sources of Income, the Investment was made in shares out of Appellant Salary Income which was earned

SHRI IKBALBHAI JUMABHAI KHIRANI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital gain instead of business income u/s 44AD of the I.T. Act 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- regarding Income from Other Sources. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B,234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

capital gain and other sources of income. The return was filed on 18.11.2009 declaring net income of Rs. 5, 40,010/-. The case was passed under Section 143(1) of the Act upon noticed that there is an unsecured loan of Rs. 65,73,083/- to KRN Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and a cash was deposited before issuing a cheque

BHARATBHAI RAVATBHAI KHACHAR,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurpose

capital gains to tax, penalty imposed under section 271D was\nunsustainable in law”\n9. We have gone through carefully the submission

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) - - are not justified and are bad-in-law. 5. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay

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

gain by lot or chance, which lead to the loss of the hard\nearned money of the undiscerning and improvident common man and thereby lower his standard of\nliving and drive him into a chronic state of indebtedness and eventually disrupt the peace and\nhappiness of his humble home could possibly have been intended by our Constitution makers

KALINDI JAYENDRA RANPARA RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.125/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot. Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpr6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s.274 rws 271(1)(c) is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6). Your assessee reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The case of the assessee was reopened

PARI ANIL GANDHI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the it Act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A,B,C and d it is totally wrong. Unwarranted, unjustified

PARI ANIL GANDHI,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the it Act it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The learned commissioner of income tax (appeals), national faceless appeal centre has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in respect of charging the interest u/s.234 A,B,C and d it is totally wrong. Unwarranted, unjustified

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 29.06.2025 wherein it was mentioned "you had preferred appeal which has been disposed of by the 1st appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A)." On perusal of this notice, the assessee immediately approached the consultant. Therefore, in this process, the delay of 80 days has occurred, which may kindly