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

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

143(3) of the Income tax Act (the Act] passed by the Assistant\ncommissioner of Income tax. Circle -1 Jamnagar [the Ld. assessing officer]\ndetermining the total income of assessee as per normal computation of income at Rs\n50,17,35,726/- against returned income of Rs. 49,85,50,620/- and determining the Book\nprofit u/s 115JB

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)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Babubhai K. Sakaria 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows; “1. The order passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1 National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) is bad in law and invalid. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in upholding

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)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Kantaben Vajubhai Paghdal, 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 84 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these

SMT. JANKI KISHAN HINGORANI,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

section 263 of the Act. 2. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in not dropping the proceedings u/s. 263 despite the fact that the original order passed by the AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in revising the assessment by invoking

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the\n assessment year 2015-16.\n2. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows.\n(1).The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding assessment of gain of Rs. 1,01,04,063/-\nas business income, as against long term capital gain and thereby, disallowing claim of\nexemption

SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

capital gains tax with respect to the aforesaid immovable properties, was in pursuance to the aforesaid notice under section 143(2

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

section 143(3) of\nthe Act, dated 26/12/2017, for revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary that

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. 4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income

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. 4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income

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. 4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income

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. 4. Looking to the above facts, this office has verified the facts with the ITR filed and it is found that you have claimed LTCG of Rs.8,90,894/- under Schedule El under the head of details of exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income

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

AMIBEN RAJESHKUMAR PUNATAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.24/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar, बनाम/ Ito, Ashish, 41-New Jagnath Plot, Vs Ward – 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001(Gujarat) Rajkot "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahrpp4181F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

Capital gain and assessing officer examined while framing the assessment under section 143 (3) of the Act. Hence, the information received by the assessing officer, and based on the information, the re-assessment proceedings, initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law, assessing officer does not have new material to re-open the concluded assessment. 11. I also find

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

section 143(3) of\nthe Act, dated 26/12/2017, for revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act.In\nresponse to the said notice, the assessee made written submissions on\n13/03/2019. The gist of the assessee`s submission is as under:\n“1. With respect to the claim of exempt Capital Gain, the assessee has contended that\nit is not necessary that

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

143(3) rad with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: ITA No.336 /RJT/2023 Kumar Ramesh Sahu vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2009-10 “1. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in Law and facts in confirming the addition made by AO of Long Term Capital Gain

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

gain arose as there was no transfer as per the Income Tax Act.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "46A", "132(4)", "2(14)(v)", "53A", "2(47)(v)" ], "issues": "Whether capital

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

143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19.09.2016, which was duly served upon the assessee on 20.09.2016. The notice u/s 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

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

capital gain also claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. The claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 13th December 2017. 5. Subsequently, the learned Pr. CIT found that the valuer without adopting realistic approach or scientific method valued the property at unrealistic value