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

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

capital gain arose as there was no transfer as per the Income Tax Act.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "46A", "132(4

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

4 There was no finding about the source of investment made by the assessee in the windmill business. F.1 Based on the above, the learned CIT found clarification from the assessee. The assessee in response to such notice submitted that he is maintaining separate books of accounts with respect to its windmill business without which it was not possible

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

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

132 Taxman 373]\n(SC) and (xvii) Banyan & Berry vs. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj).\n14. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of\nlower authorities. The Ld. CIT-DR took us through the provisions of Section\n115JB of the Act, wherein he has especially drawn our attention to clause-(i) of\nExplanation

M/S OM KIRTI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

capital gain as claimed and thereby computing the profit thereon at Rs. 86,56,527/-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad erred in confirming disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 14,40,475 to 1C1CI bank made by the A.O. by treating it as personal expenditure. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Ahmedabad

SMT. ASHABA RAJENDRASINH ZALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain.” 4. However, the benefit of basic exemption of Rs. 1,45,000/- has not been extended to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the claim of the assessee observed that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the return of income for the year under Smt. Ashaba Rajendrasinh Zala vs. CIT(A) Asst.Year – 2008-09 consideration

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

132 subsection 4 record on 21st of March 2012 and on the basis of transactions in those foreign banks accounts, the assessee and his father, Shri Ravichandran V Mehta had admitted that the amount of Rs.80.11 Crore laying in the HSBC account as on February 2007 was not disclosed to the department, that the tune of Rs.39.60 crore was unaccounted

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

132 of the Act, was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 17.01.2013. Consequent to search u/s 132 of the Act, proceedings u/s 153A of the Act was initiated by issuing notice, dated 30.07.2014, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee was required to file return of income within 30 days of the receipt

THE ITO, WARD-5,, MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. SHRI KOTAK MAYUR ARVINDBHAI, MUNDRA (KUTCH)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

4 . A.Y. 2007-08 8. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. In this case, Mayur Aravindbhai Kotak, Mundra is an individual and filed its return on 31.03.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 1,04,780/- and same was earned from Short Term capital gain , bank interest and personal business income and remuneration from partnership firm

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

132(4) of the Act during search wherein the assessee disclosed the fact of making division of his wealth between his two sons in 1979 which was never been deviated by the assessee in later period. It is a fact that there was frequent and continuous transfer of funds into two or more bank accounts out of which transfer

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

132(4) of the Act during search wherein the assessee disclosed the fact of making division of his wealth between his two sons in 1979 which was never been deviated by the assessee in later period. It is a fact that there was frequent and continuous transfer of funds into two or more bank accounts out of which transfer

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

132(4) of the Act during search wherein the assessee disclosed the fact of making division of his wealth between his two sons in 1979 which was never been deviated by the assessee in later period. It is a fact that there was frequent and continuous transfer of funds into two or more bank accounts out of which transfer

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

132(4) of the Act during search wherein the assessee disclosed the fact of making division of his wealth between his two sons in 1979 which was never been deviated by the assessee in later period. It is a fact that there was frequent and continuous transfer of funds into two or more bank accounts out of which transfer

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

4) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 consequential to a search action carried out under section 132 of the Act dated 22.12.2006. Since, all the cases are relating to the identical issue arising out of the common search proceeding conducted

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

4) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 consequential to a search action carried out under section 132 of the Act dated 22.12.2006. Since, all the cases are relating to the identical issue arising out of the common search proceeding conducted

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

4) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 consequential to a search action carried out under section 132 of the Act dated 22.12.2006. Since, all the cases are relating to the identical issue arising out of the common search proceeding conducted