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

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

47) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Hence, capital reduction amounts to\ntransfer of asset. Hence, an actual write off on account of capital reduction is in\nthe context of the fact that at the end of the year there is no asset in respect of\nwhich loss on capital reduction is debited. Hence, in absence of any asset

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)

gains or under any other head of income. Taking the rationale of the High Court of Gujrat in the case of Movaliva Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. ITO CA No.17944 of 2015, order dated 31.03.2016, wherein it was held that interest on compensation/enhanced compensation under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forms part of compensation/consideration and not interest as contemplated

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)

47. The issue to be decided before us-what is the meaning of the words "enhanced compensation/consideration" in Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act? Will it cover "interest"? These questions also bring in the concept of the year of taxability. 48. It is to answer the above questions that we have analysed the provisions of Sections

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

gain arose as there was no transfer as per the Income Tax Act.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "46A", "132(4)", "2(14)(v)", "53A", "2(47)(v)" ], "issues": "Whether capital

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

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

47) of the Income-tax Act, provides that any conversion of capital\nasset into stock-in-trade shall be regarded as a transfer. This transfer arises in\nthe year in which such conversion takes place and, accordingly, capital gain\nwould normally arise in that very year. However, section 45(2) of the Act, post-\npones the assessment of such capital

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that the provisions referred to by the assessee are in a Chapter related to "Capital Gains," whereas an approved scheme of amalgamation operates by law, as recognized

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

47,977/- 2. Interest to partners Rs. 9,85,160/- The Book Profit was therefore Rs. 20162589/-, the AO has also noted the same in his assessment order in his computation on page 12 of the order. The AO has not disbelieved the other entries of P&L account. His grievance has arisen due to declared net profit being much

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

capital in the industrial undertaking set up,\n(2). employment of requisite labour therein, (3). manufacture or production of articles in the said undertaking, (4). earning of profits clearly attributable to the said new undertaking, and (5) above all, a separate and distinct identity of the industrial unit set up. The Court is of the view that

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

capital in the industrial undertaking set up,\n10\n(2). employment of requisite labour therein, (3). manufacture or production of\narticles in the said undertaking, (4). earning of profits clearly attributable to the\nsaid new undertaking, and (5) above all, a separate and distinct identity of the\nindustrial unit set up. The Court is of the view that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

capital in the industrial undertaking set up,\n10\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\n(2). employment of requisite labour therein, (3). manufacture or production of\narticles in the said undertaking, (4). earning of profits clearly attributable to the\nsaid new undertaking, and (5) above all, a separate and distinct identity

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

capital in the industrial undertaking set up,\n10\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\n(2). employment of requisite labour therein, (3). manufacture or production of\narticles in the said undertaking, (4). earning of profits clearly attributable to the\nsaid new undertaking, and (5) above all, a separate and distinct identity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

capital in the industrial undertaking set up,\n10\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\n(2). employment of requisite labour therein, (3). manufacture or production of\narticles in the said undertaking, (4). earning of profits clearly attributable to the\nsaid new undertaking, and (5) above all, a separate and distinct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

capital in the industrial undertaking set up,\n10\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\n(2). employment of requisite labour therein, (3). manufacture or production of\narticles in the said undertaking, (4). earning of profits clearly attributable to the\nsaid new undertaking, and (5) above all, a separate and distinct

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI i. Addition an account of commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-. ii. Addition of peak credit in bank account of Rs. 46,50,353/-. On appeal, before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not press ground relating to commission income of Rs. 8,61,446/-, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same. About addition

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

gain and it cannot be liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24) 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on Page 16 of 22 Friends Salt Works and Ltd. account of saving of energy consumption and not because of its business

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

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

gain and it cannot be liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24) 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on Page 16 of 22 Friends Salt Works and Ltd. account of saving of energy consumption and not because of its business

M/S. KANDLA AGRO & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, Tax Appeal is allowed

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

47 Taxman 215 (AIL), 2. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 57 Taxman 123 (Cal.), 3. Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 105 Taxman 3 (Delhi). Further, section 28(iv) clearly brings the receipt from sale of CERS within the ambit of taxability. The subsection (iv) to section 28 brings into the tax net "the value of any benefit

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