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

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

142 taxmann.com 247, held that where\nAssessing Officer noted that assessee had indulged in scrip of shell company\nand had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares and made addition\nunder section 68 holding that entire transaction was bogus and in the nature of\npenny stock, however, since genuineness of investment in shares by assessee\nwas substantiated

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

142(1) dtd. 01-12-2010 even after the assessee was supplied with a copy of reasons for reopening. The assessee did not submit any reply to the final, show cause notice dtd. 08-12-2010 and also did not submit any details in response to the proposal to tax the sale of land as Capital Gain. No evidences during

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)

gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account” Calculation of the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was submitted by the assessee before ld.PCIT, which is given here under: ITA No. 37/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager v. PCIT Sr. Description Total Long Term Total Interest

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

142 taxmann.com 247, held that where\nAssessing Officer noted that assessee had indulged in scrip of shell company\nand had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares and made addition\nunder section 68 holding that entire transaction was bogus and in the nature of\npenny stock, however, since genuineness of investment in shares by assessee\nwas substantiated

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.

142(1) giving the break-up of “any other amount allowable as deduction” including therein the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act for special reserve created amounting to Rs.4,49,94,107/-. (Paper-book page No.42); (iii) Detailed computation, being statement showing segment-wise profitability of the bank, of the deduction so claimed (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

section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, was issued on 29.03.2018 and was duly served upon the assessee, through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.07.2018, was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA email facility. Further, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, along with specific questionnaire, dated 12.09.2018, was issued

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

section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, was issued on 29.03.2018 and was duly served upon the assessee, through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.07.2018, was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA email facility. Further, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, along with specific questionnaire, dated 12.09.2018, was issued

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

142(1) of the Act, cum questionnaire was issued to the assessee. In compliance thereto, the AR of assessee, appeared and filed written submissions. Books of accounts and relevant bills / vouchers etc, were produced, before the assessing officer. The assessee has claimed that M/s Radhika Jewellers, was proprietorship concern, up to 30.06.2014 and Shri. Ashok Kumar Zinzuwadia was the proprietor

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

142(1) of the Act, dated 06/12/2022, and a show -cause notice dated 14/12/2022, were issued to the assessee, granting opportunity to explain its case and furnish the relevant details/documents. 4. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, on verification of the submission of the assessee it was observed by the assessing officer that the company, namely M/s Gandhi Realty (India

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

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

142(1) of the Act, calling for\nvarious details were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the\naforesaid statutory notices, the assessee attended the proceeding on the dates of\nhearing and submitted the required details from time to time. The books of\naccounts, bills/vouchers were produced by the assessee and same were verified\nby the assessing officer

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

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