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

SHRI JAWAHIR RAVICHANDRA MEHTA,DUBAI(UAE) vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee vide ITA/81/Rjt/2020 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

2) of Section 150 as it stands, in our view, a fair and just interpretation would be that the Authority under the Act has been empowered only to reopen assessments, which have not already been closed and attained finality due to the operation of the bar of limitation under Section 149. 19. This Court took similar view in the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2)/ Information/Vax/2017-18 dated 23-03-2018 regarding manipulation in market price of shares of company namely Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) in order to provide accommodation entries of Long ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF Term Capital Gain. From the information it is gathered that a mass enquiry was conducted

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

2)/ Information/Vax/2017-18 dated 23-03-2018 regarding manipulation in market price of shares of company namely Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) in order to provide accommodation entries of Long ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF Term Capital Gain. From the information it is gathered that a mass enquiry was conducted

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

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)

35,919/- for long term gain on sale of shares of PS IT Infrastructure & Services Limited (Erstwhile known as Parag Shilpa Investment Limited). The claim of the assessee is duly supported and based on the third- party evidences as submitted in the assessment proceeding. The assessee has purchased the shares of PS IT infrastructure & Services Limited, during the year

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,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 & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

capital, had been explained by the assessee or not, was left unexamined. It was held that it is a case where prejudice is writ large. 15. It is not necessary for us to multiply the precedents for the simple reason that the assessment order does not contain the necessary discussion with regard to the various aspects of the case indicated

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

2. The Assessing Officer erred in law by not allowing the assessee' s 176th share in Purchase Price of the property which works out to Rs.1,79,203(1/6th of Rs. 10,75,215). 3. The Assessing Officer has erred in law by adopting stamp duty valuation u/s 50C as the assessee has filed Return mentioning income from sale

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)

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot erred in holding that the appellant purchased and sold the lands with the intention of adventure in the nature of trade. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot failed to appreciate the capital nature of such lands accepted in past income-tax assessments, wealth-tax returns

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 of construction of a new residential property from the sale of the above land. The assessee also claimed deduction of Rs.1,58,97,370/- under section 54B on account of purchase of new agricultural land

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 of construction of a new residential property from the sale of the above land. The assessee also claimed deduction of Rs.1,58,97,370/- under section 54B on account of purchase of new agricultural land

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

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.

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 had transferred capital asset which