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

Capital Gain of Rs. 1,32,35,925/-.\nThe ld PCIT observed that the assessee is only emphasizing on the\ndocumentation, banking channels and having satisfied the conditions for\nclaiming the exemption under section 10

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would form part of the compensation and would be exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the I.T. Act, whereas the interest received under section 34 of the Act of 1894 would

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

gains of the assessee’s business. • to the provisions of section 33AC, 80HHB(4), 80HHD(5)(a) and 10AA(3) pointing out that all these provisions specifically provided for taxing the amounts credited to the reserve created,as provided under the relevant sections, on non- utilization of the said reserves for the specified purposes. 5 8. The ld.counsel

M/S FLAMINGO HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

10-11. The Ld.CIT(A) has rejected this plea of the assessee as also the order of the AO holding that the loss is allowable in the year in which the asset was destroyed by earthquake, i.e 2001. The Ld.CIT(A) has applied section 45(1A) of the 5 Act to the issue and held that the loss is allowable

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)

1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1961 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b)of the 1961 Act. "Thus, the court has held that interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is an accretion to compensation and forms part of the compensation and, therefore, exigible to tax under section

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 1,32,35,925/-.\nThe ld PCIT observed that the assessee is only emphasizing on the\ndocumentation, banking channels and having satisfied the conditions for\nclaiming the exemption under section 10

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

capital gains' but Assessing Officer chose to tax same under head other sources, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was to be cancelled." CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 533 (Delhi): "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Penalty For concealment of income - Assessment year 2001-02-Assessee had declared its income from

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

10(38) of the Act, in respect of the said scrip. In fact, the assessee earned a short- term capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even refuting

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

10(38) of the Act, in respect of the said scrip. In fact, the assessee earned a short- term capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even refuting

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)

capital gain on sale of shares and made addition under section 68 holding that entire transaction was bogus and in the nature of penny stock, however, since genuineness of investment in shares by assessee was substantiated by him by producing copy of transaction statement for period from 1-6- 2001 to 1-10-2010 and shares were retained for more

MANSUKHLAL 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 through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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 through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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 through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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

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

capital gain through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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 tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, as is evident from Paragraph 6.1 of the assessment order, the assessee also furnished certificate of Talati cum Mantri of Billiyala Gram Panchayat in which it was stated that even till today, the agricultural land is situated at a distance of 10 km from Gondal Nagar Palika. Further, during the course

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

1 Shri. Ashok Kumar 34,33,30,821 The person Proprietor of M/s Radhika Zinzuwadia Jewellers upto 30.06.2014 2. Harsh M. Shri. Zinzuwadia 36,74,97,249 Brother of said Proprietor 3. Shri Darshit A Zinzuwadia 6,66,82,080 Son of said proprietor Total value of Stock as on 77,75,10,150 01.07.2014 In reply to show cause

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, 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. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital and Reserve Fund of Rs. 195 crore. So, the proposed disallowance is not justifiable. 7. In view of the grounds mentioned as above your Appellant requests your Honour to appreciate the fact that re-opening of the assessment as above is completely erroneous and disregard with the Act, and order under section 263 is required to be quashed

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

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits