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

reopening of assessment in the case of the assessee for assessment year (A.Y.) 2011- 12 is bad in law. The ld. Counsel took us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced in the assessment order and submitted that all the six scrips covered under Long Term Capital Gain

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

reopening of assessment in the case of the assessee for assessment year (A.Y.) 2011- 12 is bad in law. The ld. Counsel took us through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which is reproduced in the assessment order and submitted that all the six scrips covered under Long Term Capital Gain

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

Capital Gain. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 10. I have considered the submissions of both the parties. I note that the assessment is reopened

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)

capital gain and framed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, there is no any new tangible material with the assessing officer to reopen

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

capital gains, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.02.2010. In the assessment

RAJKOT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain was assessed at ₹ 43,82,175/-i.e. at the same figure which was originally filed in the return of income. The assessment of the assessee was reopened

NIRMAL B. CHAVDA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reopened u/s. 147 of the act by issuing of notice u/s. 148 on 25th March, 2015. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee along with the five co-owner had sold immoveable property. On verification the assessing officer noticed that the sale consideration from the property was shown on lower side in comparison to the sale value

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

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

reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short) on the basis of information that the assessee has made transactions in penny stock of Karma Ispat Limited, during the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2012-13 and claimed the long- term capital gain

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

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

reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short) on the basis of information that the assessee has made transactions in penny stock of Karma Ispat Limited, during the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2012-13 and claimed the long- term capital gain

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

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

reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short) on the basis of information that the assessee has made transactions in penny stock of Karma Ispat Limited, during the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2012-13 and claimed the long- term capital gain

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

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

reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short) on the basis of information that the assessee has made transactions in penny stock of Karma Ispat Limited, during the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2012-13 and claimed the long- term capital gain

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

assessment year 2011-12 on\n29-3-2012 declaring his total income Rs. 3,11,490/-. Subsequently the\nassessment was reopened as information was received that assessee has\nindulged into script of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain

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

assessment year 2011-12 on\n29-3-2012 declaring his total income Rs. 3,11,490/-. Subsequently the\nassessment was reopened as information was received that assessee has\nindulged into script of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain

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

gain on the sale of the plot at Jetpur. The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant had in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

Capital Gain and claiming it to be exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act?" 3. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 29- 3-2012 declaring his total income Rs. 3,11,490/-. Subsequently the assessment was reopened

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 22. The issues raised in ground Nos. 6 and 7 by the assessee are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 22. The issues raised in ground Nos. 6 and 7 by the assessee are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reopening under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any argument by the learned counsel for the assessee, we dismiss the same. 17 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 22. The issues raised in ground Nos. 6 and 7 by the assessee are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, we dismiss the same