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

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

capital gain account scheme as per section 54F(4) would not be attracted and assessee would be eligible to benefit of exemption under section 54F. 7.5 The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Smt. Harinder Kaur (2021) 126 taxmann.com 160 held that where assessee paid amount of sale consideration received from sale of a residential house for purchase of another

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

Section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.02.2010. In the assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs. 36,34,125/- being the capital gains on sale of land and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. In quantum appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals), Rajkot confirmed the addition of Rs. 36,34,125/-on account

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

capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

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

capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

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

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

19. The assessee, even in appeal effect proceedings, under section 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

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

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

19. The assessee, even in appeal effect proceedings, under section 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

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

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

19. The assessee, even in appeal effect proceedings, under section 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

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

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

19. The assessee, even in appeal effect proceedings, under section 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

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer, nowhere, in the assessment order, stated that these documentary evidences, submitted by the assessee, are bogus. 17. We note that there are three conditions to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act viz: (i) Shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheque-For that the copy of bank

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

Gain of Rs. 1,32,35,925/-.\nThe ld PCIT observed that the assessee is only emphasizing on the\ndocumentation, banking channels and having satisfied the conditions for\nclaiming the exemption under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961.\nThe ld PCIT divided the transactions in three parts, viz:(1) Purchase, (2)\nHolding period, and (3) Sale

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

Gain of Rs. 1,32,35,925/-.\nThe ld PCIT observed that the assessee is only emphasizing on the\ndocumentation, banking channels and having satisfied the conditions for\nclaiming the exemption under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961.\nThe ld PCIT divided the transactions in three parts, viz:(1) Purchase, (2)\nHolding period, and (3) Sale

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

section 45(2) of the Act, post-\npones the assessment of such capital gains to the year in which the stock-in-\ntrade is actually sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee. In the assessee`s\ncase the said converted property is sold/transferred in the year under\nconsideration and the Assesses has rightfully disclosed as capital gains along\nwith disclosing

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)

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the Page 9 of 19 Babubhai K. Sakaria interest received

ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 190/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Anandkumar Mansukhlal Income Tax Officer, Changela, Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot. C/O. M/S. Anand Agencies, Dhebar Road, Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acgpp8605G

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee, an individual, has transferred the capital asset being office space for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakh and declared capital gain of Rs. 1,19

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

capital gain to defraud the Revenue. The Ld. Sr. DR also pointed out that the holding period of scrip is only 22 months. The Ld. Sr. DR, therefore relied on the findings of the assessing officer and further relied on the following judgments: (i) Shri Mukesh M. Trivedi vs DCIT, ITA No.1955/Mum/2022, dated 07.02.2023 Page 8 of 14 Kaushaliya Sampatlal

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