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

35. The assessee in addition to the submission made before the Assessing Officer further contended that the impugned land was sold in the same assessment year i.e. AY 2012-13 and Directors in their individual capacity have offered long term capital gain which is much more than the amount of capital gain in the hands of the assessee. The reason

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

35. The assessee in addition to the submission made before the Assessing Officer further contended that the impugned land was sold in the same assessment year i.e. AY 2012-13 and Directors in their individual capacity have offered long term capital gain which is much more than the amount of capital gain in the hands of the assessee. The reason

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of tax under Section 139 of the Act. Therefore, Section 139 cannot be confined only to the provisions of the Section 139(1), but it includes all the sub section of Section 139 of the Act. ….. ….we find that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA J.BHIMANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has also filed a cross objection but as learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits, it merely supports this order of the CIT(A) and is not, therefore, pressed. The CO is thus dismissed as not pressed. 2. Coming to the appeal filed

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI 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 of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

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 of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.3,12,35,919 was disallowed and accordingly total sale proceeds of Rs.3,28,81,890/- from the sale of scrips of 'PS IT Infrastructure &Services Ltd (Formerly known as Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd) was assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and to be taxable

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 of the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s.144 after show cause notice to above effect was not responded by the assessee. The objections of the assessee in ground of appeal are threefold. First is against taking the sale consideration as per section 50C second is against not allowing the cost of acquisition and third is not allowing deduction

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

capital gain of Rs.2,94,27,541/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,35,30,171/- under section 54F of the Act on account

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

capital gain of Rs.2,94,27,541/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,35,30,171/- under section 54F of the Act on account

SHRI MOHANLAL LALJIBHAI GHODASARA(HUF),,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 44/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

35,806/- as capital contributions to firm out of the total amount of Rs.1,00,56,134/-would not be regarded as ‘transfer’ under s.2(47) of the Act and consequently would not liable for taxation at all. 6.2 It was next contended that the assessee has not sold any property in the earlier year or in the subsequent year

KARANBHAI BHARATBHAI GANGDEV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Karanbhai Bharatbhai Gangdev vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 Once the matter has been referred

SHRI KISHOR BABUBHAI SAKHIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Kisho Babubhai Sakhiya The Pr.Cit-1 Khodiyar Krupa Vs Rajkot. 3, Tanti Park Corner Rajkot.

Section 14A of Rs.3,35,389/- and disallowance of car expenses of Rs.11,874/- and determined the assessed income at Rs.1,46,27,143/- by order dated 20-12-2013 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 5. On examination of the above assessment order and connected records, it was noticed by the Pr.CIT that during the year the assessee

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

gain computed by the learned CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act was subject to tax year in which such converted stock in trade is sold. It was submitted by the learned AR that the provisions of section 45(2) requires to tax the income arising on the conversion of capital asset as stock in trade

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

35 ITR 416(SC) for the proposition that if credits are found in the business account of the assessee then the Income-tax authorities are entitled to treat the receipts as business receipts chargeable to tax and further that when amount is found credited in books maintained for business then it is not unreasonable inference to draw that

SHRI DILIPBHAI U.UDANI, RAJKOT,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

gain. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. I.T.A No. 251/Rjt/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Shri Dilipbhai J. Udani vs. ACIT-III 6. The learned AR before us submitted that the AO has no power to substitute the value shown by the assessee as on 1 April