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 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 proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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 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 proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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 proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

Capital Gains. Further. as per the direction of the SEBI, the BSE has already suspended GLOBAL SECURE (scrip code-530657). l. In view of the above, the onus is on the assessee to prove that either there was no such scheme and even if so, the benefit to the assessee was as a result of genuine transaction. Further, the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT vs. LAJVANTIBEN RAJABHAI HINDUJA, RAJKOT

capital gain is attracted.\n11. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed written\nsubmission alongwith documentary evidences, which were already submitted\nbefore the assessing officer. The assessee has stated that she had constantly\ndenied the receipt of the cash amount of Rs.25 Lacs before the assessing\nofficer. The assessee had claimed that the said land was agreed

MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that the provisions referred to by the assessee are in a Chapter related to "Capital Gains," whereas an approved scheme of amalgamation operates by law, as recognized in the Smifs case. In this case hon’ble delhi high court has held