MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

37,762/- being 25% share (18962258 / 25%) is consideration for compulsory acquisition of land itself. And being rural agricultural land it is not a capital asset, and accordingly the same is not chargeable to tax under the head income from capital gains or under any other head of income. In connection with reference invited to section 56(2

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

37,06,700/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income\non 19.03.2019, declaring total income at Rs.49,85,50,620/-. The assessee`s case\nwas selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, notice under section\n143(2) of the Act, was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice\nunder section 142(1) of the Act was issued

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain and income from other sources. Besides during the year, assessee received 25% share in enhanced compensation, totalling to Rs. 2,69,41,878/-, on compulsory acquisition of ancestral agricultural land of his family. The above compensation of Rs. 2,69,41,878/- was inclusive of interest of Rs. 1,89,62,258/-, granted u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition

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)

37,762/- is consideration for compulsory acquisition of land itself, and being rural agricultural land it is not a capital asset, and accordingly the same is not chargeable to tax under the head income from capital gains or under any other head of income. Taking the rationale of the High Court of Gujrat in the case of Movaliva Bhikhubhai Balabhai

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

2) of Section 150 as it stands, in our view, a fair and just interpretation would be that the Authority under the Act has been empowered only to reopen assessments, which have not already been closed and attained finality due to the operation of the bar of limitation under Section 149. 19. This Court took similar view in the case

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

Capital Gain” is devoid of any merit. 24 A.Y.2011-12 and others Furthermore, the assessee and the Directors are closely connected people and therefore there is no loss to the revenue merely on the reasoning that the income has been offered in the hands of the Director in place of the company. Thus, we don’t find any infirmity

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gain” is devoid of any merit. 24 A.Y.2011-12 and others Furthermore, the assessee and the Directors are closely connected people and therefore there is no loss to the revenue merely on the reasoning that the income has been offered in the hands of the Director in place of the company. Thus, we don’t find any infirmity

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gain” is devoid of any merit. 24 A.Y.2011-12 and others Furthermore, the assessee and the Directors are closely connected people and therefore there is no loss to the revenue merely on the reasoning that the income has been offered in the hands of the Director in place of the company. Thus, we don’t find any infirmity

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

Capital Gain” is devoid of any merit. 24 A.Y.2011-12 and others Furthermore, the assessee and the Directors are closely connected people and therefore there is no loss to the revenue merely on the reasoning that the income has been offered in the hands of the Director in place of the company. Thus, we don’t find any infirmity

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

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

37,01,000/-. The assessee\nthereafter showed huge cost of improvement in the development of the new\nacquired property and the entire sum was claimed as exempt u/s. 54 of the Act,\nthus, reducing the taxable capital gain to a nominal sum. It is further seen that,\nthe impugned land transferred by virtue of development agreement on which the\nassessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT vs. LAJVANTIBEN RAJABHAI HINDUJA, RAJKOT

Capital gain of\nRs.4,66,00,000/-with giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessing officer as per\nrule 46A of Income Tax Rules.\"\n(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the\nLd.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee\nassessee during the appellate proceedings

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

capital, had been explained by the assessee or not, was left unexamined. It was held that it is a case where prejudice is writ large. 15. It is not necessary for us to multiply the precedents for the simple reason that the assessment order does not contain the necessary discussion with regard to the various aspects of the case indicated

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

2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs.\n5,21,964/-.\n3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the\nappellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were\nbrought as genuine investment which

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

2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs.\n5,21,964/-\n3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the\nappellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were\nbrought as genuine investment which

SHRI BABUBHAI NARANBHAI SAKHIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

37,435/- was thus worked out and the same was claimed as deduction under section 54B of the Act. Further perusal of the details furnished in respect of capital gain revealed that capital asset was held by the assessee for less than two years and deduction claimed under section 54B was therefore incorrectly claimed by the assessee. The AO while

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

37,55,020/-. The then CIT (A)-IV, Rajkot vide order dtd. 13-09-2012 has confirmed the addition of Rs. 36,34,125/- on account of capita! gain on sale of plot of land. However, he allowed deduction of Rs. 19,30,320/- in the short term capital gain as cost of improvement being amount of premium paid

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)

2. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 has erred in law while passing the appellate order by merely stating that assessee has not challenged that the order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section

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)

2 of section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the order is passed without making inquiries or verification of the information available on record. In this case, the material and information was available with