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

32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is eligible for depreciation. The assessee argued that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd apply, pointing out the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

capital expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also half-heartedly submitted that this alternative plea of the applicability of section 28 and section 37 was not raised by the assessee before the authorities

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

capital expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also half-heartedly submitted that this alternative plea of the applicability of section 28 and section 37 was not raised by the assessee before the authorities

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

32,35,925/-.\nThe ld PCIT observed that the assessee is only emphasizing on the\ndocumentation, banking channels and having satisfied the conditions for\nclaiming the exemption under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961.\nThe ld PCIT divided the transactions in three parts, viz:(1) Purchase, (2)\nHolding period, and (3) Sale and then after held that

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

32 of the order is as under: “The claim of filing inaccurate particulars of income has arisen only on account of the AO taking a view as to the underlying business activities not being in the nature of turnkey power projects as specified in section 44BBB of the Act but of the nature of FTS. It is pertinent to mention

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

32,35,925/-.\nThe ld PCIT observed that the assessee is only emphasizing on the\ndocumentation, banking channels and having satisfied the conditions for\nclaiming the exemption under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961.\nThe ld PCIT divided the transactions in three parts, viz:(1) Purchase, (2)\nHolding period, and (3) Sale and then after held that

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

gains of business or profession" amounted to Rs. 4,94,94,107only, thelater being lower of the two has been claimed as deduction. Details of appropriation of profit for the F.Y.2016-17is enclosed and computation of segment-wise profit is attached at PP-14-20. 11 Shri Rajkot Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs. PCIT We have computed the profit

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)

section 142(1) of the Act and in response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted, required details and documents before the assessing officer, therefore, assessing officer examined, the each and every issue raised by the ld.PCIT and applied his mind and thereafter framed the assessment order. Just because assessing officer framed the assessment order in brief

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

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

32 share broking entities and such entities accepted that they were actively involved in the bogus long term capital gains and loss scam. It was mentioned in the investigation report that certain scripts which included scrip "Karma Ispat" were used and manipulated to provide bogus accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in the form of bogus long term capital gains (which

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

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

32 share broking entities and such entities accepted that they were actively involved in the bogus long term capital gains and loss scam. It was mentioned in the investigation report that certain scripts which included scrip "Karma Ispat" were used and manipulated to provide bogus accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in the form of bogus long term capital gains (which

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

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

32 share broking entities and such entities accepted that they were actively involved in the bogus long term capital gains and loss scam. It was mentioned in the investigation report that certain scripts which included scrip "Karma Ispat" were used and manipulated to provide bogus accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in the form of bogus long term capital gains (which

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

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

32 share broking entities and such entities accepted that they were actively involved in the bogus long term capital gains and loss scam. It was mentioned in the investigation report that certain scripts which included scrip "Karma Ispat" were used and manipulated to provide bogus accommodation entries to the beneficiaries in the form of bogus long term capital gains (which

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress 9 MT Maersk Katalin 1 4,03,64,849 10 MT Maersk Pearl 1

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

32,792 Singapore. Princess 7 MT Maersk Kiera 1 4,03,04,065 8 MT Maersk 2 19,15,34,687 I.T.A Nos. 429 & 430/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Progress 9 MT Maersk Katalin 1 4,03,64,849 10 MT Maersk Pearl 1

SHRI CHHAGANBHAI MULJIBHAI PATOLIYA,JETPUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (3) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.477/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Chhaganbhai Muljibhai Patoliya, Vs The Ito Ward 1(2)(3), Radhe Park, Shreeji School, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, . Amarnagar Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001 Jetpur (Gujarat) - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ddrpp2365A (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) The provision of said section 50C are basically deeming provision and the AO has the mandate to replace the sale consideration shown by the assessee with that the valuation adopted by the SVA in those cases where the sale consideration is lower than the valuation adopted by the SVA. (iv) As per section 50C, "Where the consideration received

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

32,94,549/- and Rs. 1,44,53,534/- admittedly shown as interest income by Shri Balkrish Mehta and Shri Jawahir Mehta respectively made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis holding him as the owner of the funds out of which the interest income has arisen is purely a guess work, based on surmise and conjecture

SHRI BALKRUSHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

32,94,549/- and Rs. 1,44,53,534/- admittedly shown as interest income by Shri Balkrish Mehta and Shri Jawahir Mehta respectively made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis holding him as the owner of the funds out of which the interest income has arisen is purely a guess work, based on surmise and conjecture

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

32,94,549/- and Rs. 1,44,53,534/- admittedly shown as interest income by Shri Balkrish Mehta and Shri Jawahir Mehta respectively made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis holding him as the owner of the funds out of which the interest income has arisen is purely a guess work, based on surmise and conjecture