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 of the Act of 1894 would

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, 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. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the Page 9 of 19 Babubhai K. Sakaria interest received undersection 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

M/S FLAMINGO HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

capital gain earned thereon had to be computed separately, the building, he held, stood transferred in the year in 3 which it was destroyed i.e. in the year 2001 when the right in the building stood extinguished, which tantamounted to “transfer” in terms of definition of the term under section 2(47) of the Act. For this interpretation, that

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

45,58,90,530/-against Returned Book loss of\nRs.28,40,37,610/-.\n2. Grounds of Appeal in relation to computation of book profit u/s 115JB\nHon. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts in\n(i). confirming addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 73.99 crores to the book profits\nunder Clause (1) of Explanation

SMT. JANKI KISHAN HINGORANI,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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\nAct, provides that although such a conversion of capital assets into stock- in-\ntrade of a business, carried on by the assessee, will be a transfer in the previous\nyear, in which the assets is so converted, but actual capital gain

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

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 - 34,33,30,821). The same was taxed in the hands

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

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

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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

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

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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

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

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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

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

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act and Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3,4,5,6/Rjt/2024 AY.2012-13 & 2013-14 is added back to the total income kor the year consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) for underreporting in consequence of misreporting of income of the Act are initiated separately.” We note that assessing

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

45(3) of the Act. As per the working I.T.A No. 144/Rjt/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Shri Babubhai Naranbhai Sakhiya. Vs. PCIT given by the assessee in the statement of income, the land was acquired on 25.7.2008 for Rs.7,62,565/- and this capital asset was transferred on 15.4.2010 for a consideration of Rs.47,00,000/- and short

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)

2. The Id CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not giving deduction in respect of purchase cost with index and jantri price also and he sustain addition made U/s. 50C thus he considered that transaction pertain to capital gain while invoking provisions of section 50 C but erred in not considering deduction due in respect of purchase

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

2(b) to section 43(6)(c) cannot be invoked. 27. The ld. CIT(A) further noticed that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 151] is not applicable to the facts of the assessee`s case since the said decision is pertaining to reconstitution

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

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

45, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Bona fide claim) - Assessee declared an income as short term capital gain Assessing Officer, however, treated said income as income from business - He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on ground that assessee had produced inaccurate particulars Whether since amount in question was truthfully reported

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SMT. BHAVNABEN B. PANCHANI, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

2,45,25,720.has escaped assessment in this) case for which the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13 needs to be re- opened within the meaning of section 147 of the IT. Act. I have therefore reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.2.45,25,729/- has escaped assessment. It is, therefore, requested that necessary approval

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SMT. BHAVNABEN BHOVANBHAI RANGANI, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

2,45,25,720.has escaped assessment in this) case for which the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13 needs to be re- opened within the meaning of section 147 of the IT. Act. I have therefore reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.2.45,25,729/- has escaped assessment. It is, therefore, requested that necessary approval

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHUPENDRA TRIKAMJI PANCHANI, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

2,45,25,720.has escaped assessment in this) case for which the case of the assessee for AY 2012-13 needs to be re- opened within the meaning of section 147 of the IT. Act. I have therefore reason to believe that income to the extent of Rs.2.45,25,729/- has escaped assessment. It is, therefore, requested that necessary approval