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

11 Radhika Jewellers assessing officer noted that said asset is transferred to the assessee- firm and therefore provisions of section 48 of the I.T. Act is applicable for charging capital gain

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

capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

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

capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

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

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

11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

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

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

11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

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

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

11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

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

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

11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

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 which is in accordance with the provision of section 10(38) of the Act. The ld Counsel stated that addition made in the assessee`s case, is without the application of the mind and purely based on the surmises and conjectures. The assessing officer has without going through the facts in the present case, passed the order merely

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

section 10(38) of the Income-\ntax Act?\"\n3. The assessee filed the return of income for the 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

section 10(38) of the Income-\ntax Act?\"\n3. The assessee filed the return of income for the 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 CHHAGANBHAI MULJIBHAI PATOLIYA,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.477/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Chhaganbhai Muljibhai Patoliya, Vs The Ito Ward 1(2)(3), Radhe Park, Shreeji School, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, . Amarnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 Jetpur (Gujarat) - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ddrpp2365A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain while invoking provisions of section 50 C but erred in not considering deduction due in respect of purchase cost with index 3. The Id CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in passing appeal order on 30-06-2025 without considering the compliance made by the assessee in respect of hearing notice dated 21- 05-2025 vide

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 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

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’), dated 04.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 23.11.2018. Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia 2. Although, this appeal filed

HUSHENBHAI ISMAILBHAI KAATARIYA,UNA vs. ITO-WARD 4, VERAVAL

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.387/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4, 202-03 Dhruv Complex Una, Yogeshwar Bhavan, Opp. S.T. Opp. K. V. School, Una, Bus Stamd, Junagadh-362560 Veraval- 362265 Gujarat Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bmspm1645L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Assessment Year. 2012-13 Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya v. ITO 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order

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

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

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 assessing officer examined while framing the assessment under section 143 (3) of the Act. Hence, the information received by the assessing officer, and based on the information, the re-assessment proceedings, initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law, assessing officer does not have new material to re-open the concluded assessment. 11

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

11. But this does not mean that loss computed under any of the five heads mentioned in section 14 - (i) 'salary', (ii) 'income from house property', (iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital

SHRI BABUBHAI NARANBHAI SAKHIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

11 of the submission the assessee has challenged the issuing of the notice u/s. 263 of the Act and has relied on various decisions. The assessee's contention in this regard is not found to be tenable. The notice u/s. 263 of the Act in this case was issued on 12.01.2016. As per Explanation 2 to section 263 which