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)

capital gain : Rs.81,94,611/- Thus the assessee would be liable to income tax on STCG of Rs.81,94,611/-. The Assessing Officer did not verify this aspect at all, therefore, the order passed by him is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He is directed to add this sum to total assessed income

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)

150 ft Ring Road, (Respondent) Rajkot PAN: APDPP6538G (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Samir Bhuptani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-05-2023 Date of pronouncement : 16-05-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-1, Rajkot dated

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

150 Ring Road, Nr. Pragati complex, Rajkot-360005 and PAN AACCG5189K (The Transferor Company 1" or "old GRIPL) and Crystal Organisers Private Limited having registered office at Crystal Mall, Basement, Kalawad Main Road, Opp. Rani Tower, Rajkot -36005 and PAN AADCC2130R (the Transferor Company 2) (together known as the Transferor Companies), had been amalgamated with the Assessee vide a scheme

SHRI SHARAD M. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT

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

Bench: The Sro, Rajula Vide Document No. 578/2014 On 07.04.2014 For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 1,37,24,875/-. However, The Sro, Rajula Has Assessed/Valued The Said Land For Rs. 2,51,93,900/- As Per Jantry/Guideline Value & Stamp Duty. Therefore The Difference Between The Jantry Value & The Sale Consideration Is Of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- Should Be Added As Income As Per Section 50C Of The Act.

150/- per sq. mtr. in respect of open land. The buyer appears to have agreed to be levied stamp duty as non-agricultural land and appears to have accepted the said valuation. It may have been on account of its application to the District Collector seeking permission to buy and hold agricultural land. However, as far as the seller

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Capital Gain - Rs. 2,68,090/ ii) Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs. 31,18,120/ AY 2010-11 Total Rs.33,86,210/- AY 2011-12 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.58,65,320/- AY 2012-13 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42,57,500/- 3. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Capital Gain - Rs. 2,68,090/ ii) Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs. 31,18,120/ AY 2010-11 Total Rs.33,86,210/- AY 2011-12 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.58,65,320/- AY 2012-13 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42,57,500/- 3. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer

SHRI DHILAN BHUPATRAI BHATHA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO-WARD-1 (1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Capital Gain - Rs. 2,68,090/ ii) Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs. 31,18,120/ AY 2010-11 Total Rs.33,86,210/- AY 2011-12 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.58,65,320/- AY 2012-13 Addition under Section 68 of the Act - Rs.42,57,500/- 3. Against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer

MAVANI NILESH HARISHBHAI HUF,PORBANDAR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital gains was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 35 of the 1922 Act. The revenue was right in contending that once the ITO had jurisdiction to make the order under section 35 of the 1922 Act the rectification order should be deemed to be referable to the exercise of the power under that provision

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

BACKBONE ENTERPRISE LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc. 80-IA. 4) This section applies to— (i) any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (a) it is owned by a company registered in India

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc. 80-IA. 4) This section applies to— (i) any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (a) it is owned by a company registered in India

SHRI SHASHIKANT BHAGVANJIBHAI RAJPARA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 409, Aadarsh Plaza, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road Rajkot. Pan : Abipr 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.2.2022 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Rajkot -1, Rajkot Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3)Of The Act By Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Facts Of The Case In 2

150 ft. Ring Road Rajkot. PAN : ABIPR 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.AR Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.CIT(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed