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

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

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

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

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

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

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

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

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

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

capital gain is attracted.\n11. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed written\nsubmission alongwith documentary evidences, which were already submitted\nbefore the assessing officer. The assessee has stated that she had constantly\ndenied the receipt of the cash amount of Rs.25 Lacs before the assessing\nofficer. The assessee had claimed that the said land was agreed

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 DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub- ITA Nos.130-131/RJT/2017 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) 82[or sub-section (3)] of section 74, 83[or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT MEENABEN H LAKHANI, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (2), RAJKOT vs. SHRI NARENDRA NANJIBHAI DAVDA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S DML EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. D.M.L. WORLD TRADE PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT vs. M/S. DRB COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains." 6. Now, in the first place, the Privy Council was not considering the case of a trading loss. The Privy Council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and even in deciding that the Privy Council felt difficulty, and were not made in the process of earning profits

RAJESHKUMAR K. NANDANI,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 23/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Shri Rajesh Vs. Ito Kuverjibhai Nandani Ward-1(2)(2), C/O. M/S. Tha Tulshidas Rajkot Narshidas, Para Bazar, Rajkot

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of long-term capital gain to the amount of Rs. 2,09,950/-. 4. The fact in brief is that assessee

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

capital loss. In view of this, the AO has correctly observed that the appellant was not maintaining books of account in respect of share transactions and has correctly levied the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for failure to keep on maintain books of accounts and documents etc as required u/s. 44AA of the Act. In view of these facts

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

capital loss. In view of this, the AO has correctly observed that the appellant was not maintaining books of account in respect of share transactions and has correctly levied the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for failure to keep on maintain books of accounts and documents etc as required u/s. 44AA of the Act. In view of these facts

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)

capital and Reserve Fund of Rs. 195 crore. So, the proposed disallowance is not justifiable. 7. In view of the grounds mentioned as above your Appellant requests your Honour to appreciate the fact that re-opening of the assessment as above is completely erroneous and disregard with the Act, and order under section 263 is required to be quashed