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

12 A.Y.2011-12 and others 18. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has received accommodation entries in the form of share capital and unsecured loan from M/s RNG Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd. Furthermore, to have such accommodation entries the assessee must have incurred commission expenses to the tune of 2% of the such amount

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

12 A.Y.2011-12 and others 18. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has received accommodation entries in the form of share capital and unsecured loan from M/s RNG Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd. Furthermore, to have such accommodation entries the assessee must have incurred commission expenses to the tune of 2% of the such amount

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

12 A.Y.2011-12 and others 18. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has received accommodation entries in the form of share capital and unsecured loan from M/s RNG Fin Lease Pvt. Ltd. Furthermore, to have such accommodation entries the assessee must have incurred commission expenses to the tune of 2% of the such amount

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

capital gains but was to invest it in construction of property within the period stipulated in Sub Section (1) of Section 54(F) of the Act then Section 54F(4) of the Act is not at all attracted. We are with respect unable to accept the reasoning adopted by Karnataka High Court in K. Ramchandra Rao (supra). The mandate

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

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 (in short “LTCG”) were not subject to reopening and further the Ld. Counsel took through the Paper Book Page

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

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 (in short “LTCG”) were not subject to reopening and further the Ld. Counsel took through the Paper Book Page

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

section 48 of the I.T. Act is applicable for charging capital gain on the said transfer. As on date 01.07.2014, the assessee -firm has taken book value at Rs. 29,90,482/- as per previous owner. However, said value of asset should be taken as per prevailing market rate as on 01.07.2014. The assessee has not filed any valuation report

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)

12. Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue, further stated that assessing officer has mentioned the modus operandi, in the assessment order, and as per the elaborate findings, mentioned in the assessment order, it is certain that assessee has obtained bogus, long-term capital gain. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim the exemption under section

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

section 50C of the act and he has correctly enhanced income by Rs. 145639/- as the assessing officer has not taken into consideration the actual cost of land while computing capital gain. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds of appeal

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

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

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

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35,925/-, has been shown\nfrom sale of 12

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35,925/-, has been shown\nfrom sale of 12

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

section 10(38) of The Act. Kiran Kothari Vs ITO [ITA 443/Kol/2017] "we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form PARTMENT of bills. contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. Neither these evidences were

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)

12 months, and sold through a recognized stock exchange after payment of security transaction tax assessee was eligible to claim exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains