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 and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even refuting the documentary evidence placed on records by the assessee, doubted the genuineness of share transactions simply on the basis

RADHIKA JEWELLERS,RAJKOT vs. DY.CIT 2 (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 45(3). The addition of Rs.2,95,09,518/- is prayed for deletion. 4. The appellant reserves its rights to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds on or before the time of final hearing. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. Return of income, declaring an income

PADMABEN KANTILAL RANPARA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains.\n5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and\nsupports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of\nspecial income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of\nany exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour

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

section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.\n(4). Issue No.4, the ld PCIT noticed that the unsecured loans reported

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

section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nrevenue.\n(4). Issue No.4, the ld PCIT noticed that the unsecured loans reported

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

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

27-05-2024 passed by the learned CIT(A), in the matter of\nassessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the\n assessment year 2015-16.\n2. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows.\n(1).The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding assessment of gain

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

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

section 142(1) of the Act, which is placed at PB Page No.21 to 27, and the same is reproduced below: “In order to examine the issue of claim of substantial undisclosed interest received on enhanced compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land of Rs.1,89,62,258/-, you are requested to furnish the following details/documents: Brief note

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

27 November, 2017 has dealt with a similar issue as under: “(Quote)”…… In respect of surrendered stock as income from other sources in place of business income and disallowing the remuneration of Rs. 64,10,000/- to partners, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as under :- " At the very outset it is submitted that the above matter is directly

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

Section\n148/147 of the Act on the dead person. Apart from this, the Assessing Officer\nhas not issued the notice to the legal heirs and without issuing notice to the\nlegal heirs, the assessing officer has passed the assessment order in the name\nof the dead person which is invalid in the eye of law.\n16.On appeal by the assessee

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)

Capital Gain u/s. 10(38) is backed by third party evidence ( bills, invoices, contract note, D- mate, STT paid, purchase share through banking channel) and after fulfilment of all the conditions laid down under the provision of section 10(38), moreover, the script “Tuni Textile Ltd” is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of ITAT-Rajkot

MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour

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

gains. From these facts it is clear that the assessee had offered explanation by furnishing necessary details and also substantiated it. The explanation of the assessee was not found to be false by Revenue in view of the fact that the computation as submitted by assessee was accepted by Revenue. Thus, it is clear that no material was found

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

section 43(6)(c) cannot be invoked. 27. The ld. CIT(A) further noticed that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 151] is not applicable to the facts of the assessee`s case since the said decision is pertaining to reconstitution of Partnership Firm

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

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

gain should have been shown\nirrespective of treatment in book of account. Therefore, ld CIT(A), based on these\nfacts, confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer.\n10. Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee, pleaded on behalf\nof assessee that there was reduction in the capital and the assesssee has “written\noff\" the investments

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Capital Gain" of Rs. 45,03,271/-. 8. The Assessing Officer, after going through the balance-sheet of the assessee, as on 31.03.2012, noticed that a sum of Rs.99,76,000/-, was shown by assessee under the head "Sundry Creditors". On being asked to furnish the details of the amount, it was explained by the assessee that the amount

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)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

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 subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not 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 account of saving of energy consumption

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 subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not 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 account of saving of energy consumption