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

c) of Rs.5,51,702/-. The facts in this case are that the return of income showing total income of Rs. 1,20,890/- and agriculture income of Rs. 1,58,137/- was filed on 31/10/2017. The case was re-opened on the basis of information received from the ITO Ward 1(1), Rajkot that the assessee had sold agricultural

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

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

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)

C)/2 1% X average value of investment 1 % X Rs. 46,00,00,000 Rs.46,00,000 (Income from which is exempt) Total Disallowance Rs.46,00,000/- However, the assessing officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has not properly examined the above issues. 8. The ld.PCIT had noticed the fourth issue from the assessment

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)

1. The Id CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering need the addition made relates to capital gain and the statutory position of capital gain specifically required to reduce the purchase cost with index cost from the sale while considering the addition Chhaganbhai M. Patoliya, which needs deduction in respect of purchase cost with index cost

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

gaining financial and operational synergy by combining staff and resources of all the three companies. It was envisaged to create one single entity by encompassing different business operations in one legal entity, each company would leverage off of the other company's strengths. The merger would lead to creating a strong entity wherein fund raising would have been easier because

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

gains of business or profession" amounted to Rs. 4,94,94,107only, thelater being lower of the two has been claimed as deduction. Details of appropriation of profit for the F.Y.2016-17is enclosed and computation of segment-wise profit is attached at PP-14-20. 11 Shri Rajkot Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs. PCIT We have computed the profit

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

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

13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 term capital gains of Rs.8,90,894/-, on this transaction was claimed exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer has accepted the submission and no addition

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

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

13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 term capital gains of Rs.8,90,894/-, on this transaction was claimed exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer has accepted the submission and no addition

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

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

13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 term capital gains of Rs.8,90,894/-, on this transaction was claimed exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer has accepted the submission and no addition

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

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

13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 term capital gains of Rs.8,90,894/-, on this transaction was claimed exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer has accepted the submission and no addition

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

13. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 14. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused

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

13. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 14. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

13. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. ITA Nos.27/RJT/2016& 360,315/Rjt/2015 A.Y.2011-12,2012-13 14. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused

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)

1. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 is bad in law as well as on facts as the order is passed against the principles of natural justice, though the assessee has specifically prayed to grant an opportunity of heard and the same was not granted. Thus

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143