ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 190/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Anandkumar Mansukhlal Income Tax Officer, Changela, Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot. C/O. M/S. Anand Agencies, Dhebar Road, Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acgpp8605G

capital gain at Rs. 3,17,517/- after taking consideration at Rs. 5,51,000/- under the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act and accordingly framed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The AO in the assessment order initiated penalty proceeding under section 271

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In appeal against the against the order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee submitted that penalty cannot be levied in case two opinions are possible in respect of a certain transaction. In the instant case, there are divergent views whether capital gains

SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

capital gains on sale of such land was exempt from taxation. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee firstly, on the ground that the revised return had been filed by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act and further, it was only once notice under section

LATE ABBASHBHAI ISMAILBHAI SHEKH, L/H. JENAMBEN ABBASBHAI SHEKH,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO -WARD- 3(5), JNR, /JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.173 To 177/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) बनाम/ Late Abbashbhai Ismail Shekh I.T.O., L/H Jenamben Abbasbhai Shekh, Ward-1(5), Vs. Vanza No Delo, O/S Khoja Gate, Jamnagar. Sandhi Jamatkhana Street, Jamnagar.

section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non- compliance of the notice issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings. 14. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that we have observed in the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 173/RJT/2019 that the deceased is not liable to tax on the capital gain

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Urvashi Girishbhai Lal, 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting

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 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 was long back

LATE SHRI TULSIBHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA, L/R SHRI HARIBHAI T. PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271

SHRI MAGANLAL LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271

SHRI LAKHABHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271

SMT. HANSABEN MADHUKANT PANDYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271

MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 148A and sec. 148 of the IT Act 1961 and therefore the\nassessment made may please be quashed.\n07. That the assessee is an agriculturist and sold the agriculture land which is\nexempt however without appreciating the facts, and without making further\ninquiry addition made as short term capital gain of Rs 66,78,350/- is against\nthe documents

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

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

capital gain. At the most, such disclosure can be said as inaccurate claim made by the assessee which cannot be equated with the inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we place our reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 where in similar

SMT. VARSHA ROHIT RAVANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Smt. Varsha Rohit Ravani Ito, Ward-5(2) Rajkot. “Sarda”, 12-Nutan Nagar Vs. Kalawad Road Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Rajkot Dated 28.6.2016

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income on 4.2.2012 declaring total income at Rs.7,26,800/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that the assessee has sold property for Rs.55 lakhs and derived short term capital gain

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

Capital Gain\" of Rs. 45,03,271/-.\n8. The Assessing Officer, after going through the balance-sheet of the\nassessee, as on 31.03.2012, noticed that a sum of Rs.99,76,000/-, was\nshown by assessee under the head \"Sundry Creditors\". On being asked to\nfurnish the details of the amount, it was explained by the assessee that the\namount

NITINBHAI PANCHABHAI DHAKECHA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1)(5), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 24.03.2015 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act\").\nITA No.399/RJT/2023 (A.Y.2007-08)\nNitinbhai Ranchabhai Dhakecha v. ITO\n2. grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:\n1. Ld. CIT(A), NFCA erred in law as well as on facts in passing appellate order\nu/s 250 of the Income

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271 (1) © of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant denies his liability to the same. 7. During the course of Assessment the appellant has submitted all the documents related to his status of NRI and sources of Income, the Investment was made in shares out of Appellant Salary Income which was earned out of India, the necessary

KALINDI JAYENDRA RANPARA RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.125/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot. Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpr6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6). Your assessee reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The case of the assessee was reopened