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)

iv) read with section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A(b) of the I.T. Act. Section 145A of the I.T. bears the heading "Method of accounting in certain cases". Section 145A(b) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section145, interest received by an assessee on compensation or on enhanced compensation, as the case may be, shallbe deemed

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

gains of the assessee’s business. • to the provisions of section 33AC, 80HHB(4), 80HHD(5)(a) and 10AA(3) pointing out that all these provisions specifically provided for taxing the amounts credited to the reserve created,as provided under the relevant sections, on non- utilization of the said reserves for the specified purposes. 5 8. The ld.counsel

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

iv) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 80 Taxman 89 (SC)\n(v) Smt. Swaram Kanta vs. CIT, 44 Taxman 68 (P & H – HC)\n(vi) CIT vs. Hukam Singh, 276 ITR 347 ( P& H – HC)\n17. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the\nsubmissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents\nfurnished

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

17,03,805/- by the Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 then CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the assessee has concealed his particulars of income of Capital Gain. I am also of the considered view that the arguments made in support of grounds of appeal numbers 1

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

iv) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 80 Taxman 89 (SC)\n(v) Smt. Swaram Kanta vs. CIT, 44 Taxman 68 (P & H – HC)\n(vi) CIT vs. Hukam Singh, 276 ITR 347 ( P& H – HC)\n17. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the\nsubmissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents\nfurnished

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

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

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

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total 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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

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

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

1) dated 25.03.2021 & 29.04.2021 were issued seeking clarification on certain issue. In response to the notices issued from time to time, the assessee submitted its submissions/ information/documents online. After considering the reply given, the return income in this case is accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a total income

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, 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. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account” Calculation of the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was submitted by the assessee before ld.PCIT, which is given here under: ITA No. 37/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager v. PCIT Sr. Description Total Long Term Total Interest

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

iv) Show-cause notice dated 07.12.2019 issued to the assessee during assessment proceedings seeking justification of the claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of Rs.4,94,94,107/- (paper-book page No.48); 7 Shri Rajkot Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs. PCIT (v) The assessee’s reply to the show-cause notice dated 10.12.2019 explaining

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR-1,, RAJKOT vs. RAJESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,, RAJKOT

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and also Income from Other Sources. For the asst year 2006-07 the assessee filed his Return of Income on 31-07-2006 admitting total income of Rs.4,17,050/=. The return was processed under section 143[1] dated 06-12-2006 and refund was issued to the assessee. Thus there was no regular assessment u/s.143

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)

17. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing takes place. 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that in this case the information was received from ITO (I&CI), Rajkot, regarding the issue of capital gain u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the reassessment proceedings

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain, in respect of a script of Tuni Textile, has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted Sameer Shah HUF, that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which was also placed before the Bench. 5. Learned Departmental Representative nevertheless relied upon

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

1 has held that in a case where source of investment/ expenditure is clearly identifiable and alleged undisclosed assets has no independent existence of its own or there is no separate physical identity of such investment/expenditure then first was to be taxed is the undisclosed business receipts invested in unidentifiable unaccounted assets and only on failure it should be considered

KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: Na) (Hybrid Hearing)

iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No.8/2022 of CBDT dated 31.03.2022 and latest Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

iv) Debit and credit of shares in the Demat account of the assessee with reference to date of purchase and sale made. (v) The AO has to verify about the fact that whether the assessee is a regular investor in shares or not. However, the AO has failed to examine various aspects of penny stock cases