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

50C of the Act. However, we note that Directors in their individual hands have paid more Long Term Capital Gain tax than the capital gain computed in the hands of the assessee. This fact has already been reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was not controverted by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf

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

50C of the Act. However, we note that Directors in their individual hands have paid more Long Term Capital Gain tax than the capital gain computed in the hands of the assessee. This fact has already been reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was not controverted by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf

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

50C of the Act. However, we note that Directors in their individual hands have paid more Long Term Capital Gain tax than the capital gain computed in the hands of the assessee. This fact has already been reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was not controverted by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf

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

50C of the Act. However, we note that Directors in their individual hands have paid more Long Term Capital Gain tax than the capital gain computed in the hands of the assessee. This fact has already been reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was not controverted by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf

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)

1. The Id CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering need the addition made relates to capital gain and the statutory position of capital gain specifically required to reduce the purchase cost with index cost from the sale while considering the addition Chhaganbhai M. Patoliya, which needs deduction in respect of purchase cost with index cost

RAJKOT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act. 4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen proceedings under section 147 of the Act, however, Ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the assessee’s contention by holding that the assessee has failed to prove that the sale of the impugned property and capital gains thereon had been declared

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

section 50C of the act and he has correctly enhanced income by Rs. 145639/- as the assessing officer has not taken into consideration the actual cost of land while computing capital gain. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds of appeal

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

section 50C of the Act. The DVO in turn has valued the property at Rs. 26,91,300/- only. Accordingly, the AO observed the difference of Rs. 20,91,108/- as capital gain which was added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who has confirmed the order

KISHORBHAI VAGHJIBHAI PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,16,881/- mentioning and treating the same as long term capital gain. The addition needs deletion. 2. Taking into consideration the legal, statutory, factual, accounting and administrative aspects, no addition amounting to Rs. 7,16,881/- ought to have been confirmed. The addition

THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act nor claimed the benefit of indexation as provided under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, the AO treated the same as business income of the assessee and made the addition to the total income. We further find that, there was no discussion in the order of the learned

M/S. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE DCIT, SURENDRANAGR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act nor claimed the benefit of indexation as provided under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, the AO treated the same as business income of the assessee and made the addition to the total income. We further find that, there was no discussion in the order of the learned

THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI MAHENDRABHAI D. ZALAVADIA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 I.T.O., Shri Mahendrabhai D. Zalavadia, Vs. Ward-1(1)(4), 303, Ayodhya Apartment, Rajkot. University Road, Rajkot. Pan: Aabpz6007F

section 50C found a sound ground to add the evaded tax judiciously. In addition to the discussion it pertinent here to state that the assessee made no compliance regarding the following queries via notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.03.2015 :- a) Details of project completed viz. shop/flat along with area of them on the land introduced as capital b) The plan

SHRI JAY ATULBHAI MODY ,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (2) (3),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Jay Atulbhai Mody, I.T.O., “Pankaj”, Jalaram-3, Vs. Ward-2(2)(3), Street No.2, Rajkot. Near Indira Circle, University Road, Rajkot.

1) of the Act were issued and final show cause notice was issued on 16-02-2015 but not complied with by the assessee. Thus, the AO finalized the assessment ex-party under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 7,31,600/- being Jantari value of immovable property transferred by the assessee

DENISH KHODIDAS PATEL,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 50C(1) of the Act and, therefore, incorrect application of law, is one of the essential point to consider the order passed by the assessing officer, as erroneous. The Ld. DR for the Revenue further relied on the order passed by the Ld. PCIT,specially Para No.4.6 to 4.7 of the Ld. PCIT’s order and stated that

VISHAL NAVINCHANDRA SHAH,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL, BHUBANESWAR

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

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

capital gain on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. We note that section 50C of the Income Tax Act was not applied in correct spirit of law, after considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the assessment order is to be completed after binding the DVO report. We are of the view that one more

KALINDI JAYENDRA RANPARA RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.125/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot. Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpr6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

1)(c) is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6). Your assessee reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The case of the assessee was reopened

M/S. LADO CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,BELA (RANGPAR), DIST. MORBI. vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

50C for computation of capital gains, which was clearly unsustainable. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the case of Umesh Krishnani 35 taxmann.com 598 (Gujarat), wherein the Gujarat High Court held that where substantial amount was deposited in bank accounts of lenders shortly prior to issuance of cheques by them, transaction in question being sham, loan amount

JITESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL NAGADA,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)

1. “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) without considering the fact that the land purchased is Rural Agricultural Land which is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable

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)

1. “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) without considering the fact that the land purchased is Rural Agricultural Land which is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14). Hence, Section 56(vii)(b)(vii) is not applicable