JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 59/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N
For Appellant: Shri R.D Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)
capital gain. At the most, such disclosure can be said as inaccurate claim made by the assessee which cannot be equated with the inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we place our reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT Vs.
Reliance Petro Products Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 where in similar
