SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

1].—For the purposes of this section, "book profit" means the [profit] as shown in the [statement of profit and loss] for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2), as increased by— (a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefor; or (b) the amounts carried to any reserves, by whatever name called, other

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. A perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court would indicate that the challenge before the Hon’ble Court was that a statement of tax deducted at source

ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 190/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Anandkumar Mansukhlal Income Tax Officer, Changela, Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot. C/O. M/S. Anand Agencies, Dhebar Road, Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acgpp8605G

11. As is well settled, capital gain can be levied on actual sale consideration and not on fair market value. Sub-section [1] of Section 50C of the Act makes a deviation in this principle and introduces a concept of deemed consideration for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act. There is thus a clear distinction between sale consideration

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

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)

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the Page 9 of 19 Babubhai K. Sakaria interest received undersection 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

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

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

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

c) it provides for warranty at 2 per cent of turnover of the company based on past experience (historical trend). The first option is unsustainable since it would tantamount to accounting for warranty expenses on cash basis, which is prohibited both under the Companies Act as well as by the Accounting Standards which require accrual concept to be followed

SHRI LAKHABHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

LATE SHRI TULSIBHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA, L/R SHRI HARIBHAI T. PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

SMT. HANSABEN MADHUKANT PANDYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty

SHRI MAGANLAL LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying penalty