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

Capital Gain” is devoid of any merit. 24 A.Y.2011-12 and others Furthermore, the assessee and the Directors are closely connected people and therefore there is no loss to the revenue merely on the reasoning that the income has been offered in the hands of the Director in place of the company. Thus, we don’t find any infirmity

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

Capital Gain” is devoid of any merit. 24 A.Y.2011-12 and others Furthermore, the assessee and the Directors are closely connected people and therefore there is no loss to the revenue merely on the reasoning that the income has been offered in the hands of the Director in place of the company. Thus, we don’t find any infirmity

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

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

46,469/-, u/s 46A of the Act. on account of long-term capital gain by denying the exemption u/s 10(34A). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same. 3.The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal without considering the paper-book

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

46,469/-, u/s 46A of the Act. on account of long-term capital gain by denying the exemption u/s 10(34A). The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same. 3.The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal without considering the paper-book

ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 190/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Anandkumar Mansukhlal Income Tax Officer, Changela, Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot. C/O. M/S. Anand Agencies, Dhebar Road, Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acgpp8605G

capital gain at Rs. 3,17,517/- after taking consideration at Rs. 5,51,000/- under the provision of section 50C(2) of the Act and accordingly framed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The AO in the assessment order initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particular

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)

46,38,738.00 in the trading account and - 53,33,789.00 in the profit and loss account which were verified in the assessment proceedings. Thus, it was contended by the assessee that the valuation of the unaccounted gold/ornaments/jewellery of different purity have been made as on the date of survey after considering the labour charges/making charges. However, the learned

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.

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 is an agriculture land situated Survey No.71/2, Kangashiyali which resulted in capital gain within the scope

M/S SHRI VENU PIPE INDUSTRIES,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 330/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 M/S Shri Venu Pipe Income Tax Officer, Industries, Dolatpara, Vs. Ward-1(2), Rajkot Road, Junagadh. Junagadh.

gain Rs.3,64,20,009/- Page 3 of 8 Asstt. Years 2009-10 4 6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). The assessee before the learned CIT (A) again supported its stand based on valuation report obtained from the Government registered valuer. 7. However, the learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

46,510/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte, amend or delete

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

46,510/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte, amend or delete

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

46,510/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte, amend or delete

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

46,510/- on share trading. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the charging of the interest u/s.23A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. The appellant craves to add, alte, amend or delete

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S S. KUMAR,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

46,326/- from the sale price of the wind mill of Unit-II at Vill.: Chikanyakanalli Tal.Sira, Dist.Tumker, Karnataka which was sold for ITA No. 362/Rjt/2015 a/w. CO No. 56/Rjt/2015 [M/s. S. Kumar] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - Rs.3,18,75,000/-. The difference of Rs.48,28,674/- was offered to tax by the assessee, as short term capital gain

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

46 ITR 649 (SC) related to claim of bad debts under the Act of 1922. In that case also, the case of the assessee-company was changed from one section (section 10(2)(xi) corresponding to section 36(l)(vii) and section 36(2) of the 1961 Act) to another (section 10(1) and section 10(2)(xv) corresponding

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

46 ITR 649 (SC) related to claim of bad debts under the Act of 1922. In that case also, the case of the assessee-company was changed from one section (section 10(2)(xi) corresponding to section 36(l)(vii) and section 36(2) of the 1961 Act) to another (section 10(1) and section 10(2)(xv) corresponding

SHRI NITINBHAI T. BHUPTANI, L.I.C,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-4,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountatn Member & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Rjt/2016 & 14/Rjt/2016 & 182/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011, 2011-12 & 2012-13

46,066/- u/s 24B, while computing the income from house property. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the ITA No.13/Rjt/2016, 14/Rjt/2016 & 182/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 aforesaid interest was paid to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and considered of interest amounting to Rs.1,39,612/- in respect of property situated at Yoginiketan Society, Kalawad Road

SHRI SACHIN MAROTRAO RANGARI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT CIR-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the grounds raised by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

capital gains and the A.O. was not put it to dispute. Further the assessee was of the bonafide belief that in case of shares, cash and commodity trading only the net result considering the profit or loss shall be considered I.T.A No. 106/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 3 Sachin Marotrao Rangari vs. ACIT as turnover, as the assessee believed