THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub- ITA Nos.130-131/RJT/2017 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) 82[or sub-section (3)] of section 74, 83[or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within

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

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

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

3 formulated by us hereinabove, C.A.\nNos. 2518-19 of 1999 are dismissed with costs.”\n20. We also find that at the assessment stage, the assessee submitted before the\nassessing officer that the write off of Rs.7399.28 lacs, is on account of capital\nreduction of investment in equity shares and preference shares in the group\ncompanies. This capital reduction

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

143(3) of the Act in the case of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. without pointing out any defect in the 17 A.Y.2011-12 and others documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. As such, it was pointed out by the AO that in the assessment of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was held that

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

143(3) of the Act in the case of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. without pointing out any defect in the 17 A.Y.2011-12 and others documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. As such, it was pointed out by the AO that in the assessment of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was held that

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

143(3) of the Act in the case of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. without pointing out any defect in the 17 A.Y.2011-12 and others documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. As such, it was pointed out by the AO that in the assessment of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was held that

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

143(3) of the Act in the case of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. without pointing out any defect in the 17 A.Y.2011-12 and others documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. As such, it was pointed out by the AO that in the assessment of M/s Sunshine Tiles Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was held that

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain tax and not applicable to the fact of the case of the assessee. The ld. departmental representative has also referred page no. 48 to 76 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and contended that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that provision of article 24 override the provisions of article 8 of the DTAA between India

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain tax and not applicable to the fact of the case of the assessee. The ld. departmental representative has also referred page no. 48 to 76 of ld. CIT(A)’s order and contended that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that provision of article 24 override the provisions of article 8 of the DTAA between India

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

RAMESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KHICHADIA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013

143(3) section 147 of the Act at the income declared by the assessee in the return of income at Rs. 22,17,280/- vide order dated 30 of December 2019. 3.2 Subsequently, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act was initiated vide notice dated 11 December 2021 alleging that the assessee has declared long-term capital gain

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

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

143(3) read with 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

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

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

143(3) read with 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

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

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

143(3) read with 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

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

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

143(3) read with 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

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

section 45(3). The addition of Rs.2,95,09,518/- is prayed for deletion. 4. The appellant reserves its rights to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds on or before the time of final hearing. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. Return of income, declaring an income

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

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

143(3) of the Act is bad in law. 2.The ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 46,46,469/-, u/s 46A of the Act. on account of long-term capital gain by denying the exemption u/s 10(34A). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well

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

143(3) of the Act is bad in law. 2.The ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 46,46,469/-, u/s 46A of the Act. on account of long-term capital gain by denying the exemption u/s 10(34A). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well