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

13 A.Y.2011-12 and others 5.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's contention, the details filed and the assessment order. It is observed that the main plank on which the A.O. has based his addition is the non-production of the promotors before him leading to non-verification of the genuineness, capacity and identity. The Assessing Officer has also observed

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

13 A.Y.2011-12 and others 5.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's contention, the details filed and the assessment order. It is observed that the main plank on which the A.O. has based his addition is the non-production of the promotors before him leading to non-verification of the genuineness, capacity and identity. The Assessing Officer has also observed

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

13 A.Y.2011-12 and others 5.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's contention, the details filed and the assessment order. It is observed that the main plank on which the A.O. has based his addition is the non-production of the promotors before him leading to non-verification of the genuineness, capacity and identity. The Assessing Officer has also observed

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

13 M/s. Chandrakant H. Kakkad vs. ITO restricted only to the date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act but would include all sub section of Section 139 including sub section (4) of the Act. On the above basis it concluded that if the amount is utilized before the last date of filing of the return under Section

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

8. However, the assessing officer rejected the above reply of the assessee and held that the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act are clearly applicable to the assessee, and therefore, assessing officer held that capital gain of Rs.2,95,09,518/- is chargeable to tax. Hence, addition of the capital gain of Rs.2,95,09,518/- was added

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

8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has claimed the Long- Term Capital Gain (in short “LTCG”) and entire details ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai

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

8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has claimed the Long- Term Capital Gain (in short “LTCG”) and entire details ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai

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

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

section 263 of the Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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

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

section 263 of the Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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

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

section 263 of the Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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

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

section 263 of the Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI MAHENDRABHAI D. ZALAVADIA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 I.T.O., Shri Mahendrabhai D. Zalavadia, Vs. Ward-1(1)(4), 303, Ayodhya Apartment, Rajkot. University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabpz6007F

8 b. In fact, partner contributed his personal land to the firm on dated 02-12- 2014(A.Y. 2005-06) and not this year, hence there can’t be question of gain to him in A.Y. 2007-08 (PB page 1,4,5 and 10). c. Amount recorded by the firm u/s 45(3) can’t be disturbed

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

8. Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) at appellate stage. The same needs annulment. 9. The appellant craves leave to add / alter / amend and / or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing take place.” Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 3. The brief facts of the case

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)

8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. Shri Sagar Shah, ld.Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that assesseein the assessment year(A.Y.)2015-16 claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,12,35,919/- for long term gain on sale of shares

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

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

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)

13. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 is and in law as well as on facts by merely relying on the information reported under the AIMS module of the ITBA that script in which the appellant made the investment is found to be penny stock. However

RAJKOT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,73,38,960/-, however, the long-term capital gain was assessed at ₹ 43,82,175/-i.e. at the same figure which was originally filed in the return of income. The assessment of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had transferred ownership rights of room number 88, 1st floor, Sitaram