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

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received undersection 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would form part of the compensation and wouldbe exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the I.T. Act, whereas the interest received under section 34

KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would form part of the compensation and would be exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the I.T. Act, whereas the interest received under section 34

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has realized its 6 years later for correcting the registration document. As per the Assessing Officer the assessee is doing so in order to avoid the capital gain tax on the transfer of land. Thus the 22 A.Y.2011-12

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has realized its 6 years later for correcting the registration document. As per the Assessing Officer the assessee is doing so in order to avoid the capital gain tax on the transfer of land. Thus the 22 A.Y.2011-12

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has realized its 6 years later for correcting the registration document. As per the Assessing Officer the assessee is doing so in order to avoid the capital gain tax on the transfer of land. Thus the 22 A.Y.2011-12

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has realized its 6 years later for correcting the registration document. As per the Assessing Officer the assessee is doing so in order to avoid the capital gain tax on the transfer of land. Thus the 22 A.Y.2011-12

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.02.2010. In the assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs. 36,34

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) of the Act are attracted and the value recorded in the books of the firm is treated as full value of consideration for the purpose of computing capital gain. Accordingly, the capital gain was worked out at Rs.43,41,79,329 (77,75,10,150 - 34

NIRMAL B. CHAVDA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain was arrived at Rs. 34,59.100/- and 1/6th share of the assessee on the above escaped income was computed to the amount of Rs. 5,76,517/- as per the provision of section

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

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

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

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

SHRI GHELABHAI POPATBHAI SHINGALA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.742/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Ghelabhai Popatbhai The Income Tax बनाम/ Shingala Officer Vs. “Nayana” Ward-2(3) 4 – Shree Ranchhodnagar Rajkot Society Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aexps 2481 L .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

capital gain of Rs.26,34,331/- erroneously applying provisions of section 50C which he described wrongly. The addition needs deletion

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

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

section 45(2) of the Act, post-\npones the assessment of such capital gains to the year in which the stock-in-\ntrade is actually sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee. In the assessee`s\ncase the said converted property is sold/transferred in the year under\nconsideration and the Assesses has rightfully disclosed as capital gains along\nwith disclosing

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

Capital gain of\nRs.4,66,00,000/-with giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessing officer as per\nrule 46A of Income Tax Rules.\"\n(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the\nLd.CIT(A) has erred in considering the additional evidence produced by the assessee\nassessee during the appellate proceedings

RAMESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KHICHADIA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-2013

34,85,042/-." 3.1 Finally the assessment was framed under section 143(3) section 147 of the Act at the income declared by the assessee in the return of income at Rs. 22,17,280/- vide order dated 30 of December 2019. 3.2 Subsequently, the proceedings under section 263 of the Act was initiated vide notice dated 11 December

SMT. LILABEN BABUBHAI SAKHIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

capital assets on 02-04-2010 was due to conversion of land to stock in trade. However, since an agricultural land cannot be converted into stock in trade, the land converted into stock-in-trade could not have been agricultural land. Therefore, deduction under section 54B of the Act cannot be allowed on the gain arising from transfer of such

KANTABEN RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable. 2. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition made by Ld. A.O. of Rs. 8,34,694/- u/s. 56(vii)(b)(ii) on account of alleged difference between actual purchase price and Jantri Value without establishing that purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money neither