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

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

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed\nat Rs. 5,21,964/-.\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\nthe assessee assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were\nbrought as genuine investment which

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

capital gain, as the assessee was not properly advised by his Advocate and because of the mistake of the Advocate, the assessee has offered tax on such transaction, which should be refunded to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in order to prove that this sale deed was executed by the assessee in the favour of brother

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2 Nishant Parekh Assessment Year 2013-14, order dated 31.07.2024 whereby the issue relating to Long term 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 that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, a copy of which

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

2,00,90,073/- crore by valuing the excess stock of bullion and gold ornament. These items were not recorded in the books of account of the appellant and therefore no sale purchase and other details of such clandestine activities were found during survey. This is quite natural that no sale/purchase invoices will be found in respect of such unexplained

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

capital gains' but Assessing Officer chose to tax same under head other sources, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was to be cancelled." CIT v. Auric Investment & Securities Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 533 (Delhi): "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Penalty For concealment of income - Assessment year 2001-02-Assessee had declared its income from

SHRI VIJAY JAMNADAS VINCHHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A No. 309/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shri Vijaybhai Jamnadas Vinchhi. vs. ITO 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 58 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee

DENISH KHODIDAS PATEL,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

capital gain of only Rs. 7,37,308/-. As per Jantri value, the assessee's share in the sale consideration of immovable property is Rs. 19,60,306/- 2.The case was reopened u/s 147 of Income tax Act and notice u/s 148 dated28.03.2021 was issued calling for the return. The assessee filed his return of income on 28.04.2021, declaring