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

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

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. 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

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

capital gain and other sources of income. The return was filed on 18.11.2009 declaring net income of Rs. 5, 40,010/-. The case was passed under Section 143(1) of the Act upon noticed that there is an unsecured loan of Rs. 65,73,083/- to KRN Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and a cash was deposited before issuing a cheque

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

271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 29.06.2025 wherein it was mentioned "you had preferred appeal which has been disposed of by the 1st appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A)." On perusal of this notice, the assessee immediately approached the consultant. Therefore, in this process, the delay of 80 days has occurred, which may kindly be condoned. 4. Learned

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

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

Capital gain' would be impossible for the assessee in such cases.\nA larger bench of the Tribunal in case of Hico Enterprise vs. Commissioner of\nCustoms reported in 2005 (189) ELT (Tri.LB) following the maxim Lex non Cogit Ad\nimpossibilia held that the transferee of a quantity based license issued by the\nLicensing authority under the scheme of exemption notification

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) - - are not justified and are bad-in-law. 5. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay: 3. At the outset

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms\nof which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on\nassessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for\nreopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

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.\n2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act and some of the\nassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act').The main ground of appeal by\nthe department (Revenue) is pertaining to assailing and deletion of 70% of additions\nmade on account