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

capital gain shown and interest on NRO Account and added in the hands of the said Jawahir Mehta. Nowhere it is reflecting that the said assessments were made on protective basis on him. Be that as it may, if the assessment in the case of the father Ravichandra Mehta is made to be substantive in respect of the said sons

LATE ABBASHBHAI ISMAILBHAI SHEKH, L/H. JENAMBEN ABBASBHAI SHEKH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO -WARD- 3(5), JNR, /JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.173 To 177/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) बनाम/ Late Abbashbhai Ismail Shekh I.T.O., L/H Jenamben Abbasbhai Shekh, Ward-1(5), Vs. Vanza No Delo, O/S Khoja Gate, Jamnagar. Sandhi Jamatkhana Street, Jamnagar.

section 148 of the Act. 17. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that we have observed in the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 173/RJT/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 that the deceased is not liable to tax on the capital gain

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

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

SHRI JAY ATULBHAI MODY ,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (2) (3),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody, I.T.O., “Pankaj”, Jalaram-3, Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Street No.2, Rajkot. Near Indira Circle, University Road, Rajkot.

capital gains on such sale as no income tax return had been filed by assessee, the issuance of notice u/s 148 on basis of such uncontroverted information cannot be said to be on borrowed satisfaction. This contention is not tenable. As regards the service of notice u/s 148 and 144, I find that the notice had been served

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

capital gains, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

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 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

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

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 including section 50C of the I.T. Act for the property transactions made by him during the financial year 2011-12. The Assessee has not filed his original return of income. In response to the notices issued u/s 148

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

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

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

capital gain exemption under section 10(38),\nsince there was no evidence available on record suggesting that assessee or his\nbroker was involved in rigging up of price of script of SNCFL, addition on account\nof LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted\"\n(ii)\nChampalal Gopiram Agarwal, [2023] 155 taxmann.com 66 (Gujarat).\n“Where

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

capital gain in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. For this

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of loss of Rs.15,70,042/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,83,333/- u/s 69 of the I.T Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment

KISHORBHAI VAGHJIBHAI PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the revised grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,16,881/- mentioning and treating the same