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

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

capital gain, as the assessee was not properly advised by his Advocate and because of the mistake of the Advocate, the assessee has offered tax on such transaction, which should be refunded to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in order to prove that this sale deed was executed by the assessee in the favour of brother

SHRI SHARAD M. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT

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

Bench: The Sro, Rajula Vide Document No. 578/2014 On 07.04.2014 For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 1,37,24,875/-. However, The Sro, Rajula Has Assessed/Valued The Said Land For Rs. 2,51,93,900/- As Per Jantry/Guideline Value & Stamp Duty. Therefore The Difference Between The Jantry Value & The Sale Consideration Is Of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- Should Be Added As Income As Per Section 50C Of The Act.

capital gains is available to the assessee irrespective of the consideration value adopted under a deeming fiction such as Sec 50C. In other words, full and true effect to a deduction provision should be granted by considering that Sec. 50C and Sec. 54B are distinct provisions operating in their separate fields.” 2.3. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the submissions

RANCHODBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI DHAMI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 431/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami. Vs. Ito Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. M. N. Manvar & Co. Ca, 504, Star Plaza, Nr. Circuit House, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/ 12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/05/2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1). Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Short Term Capital Gain Made By Ao Rs. 29,56,695/- U/S 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Income In The Nature Of Business

capital gain made by AO Rs. 29,56,695/- u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act) for the income in the nature of business ITA-431/RJT/2024 (AY-2012-13) Ranchhodbhai Vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. Rs. 1,22,770/- from sale of industrial plots jointly owned by the appellant and other 4 (Four

HARPALSINH PRUTHVISINH GOHIL,HARPALNIVAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(5), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain\" without establishing any cogent\nmaterial OR evidence to justify such addition and by merely relying upon\nconjectures, surmises, and presumptions.\n3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the rejection of explanations\nand documentary evidences and additional evidences submitted by the appellant,\nwithout assigning any cogent reasons and without pointing out any infirmity\ntherein

RASILABEN BHARAT PARMAR,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.923/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rasilaben Bharat Parmar The Ito, Ward-2(1) बनाम Block No.1252, Narayannagar Jamnagar. Opp: Gulabnagar Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Ckvpp 5590 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Sainicaptioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 08.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 01.03.2022. 2. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal, Pertains To Addition Of Rs. 7,60,800/-, Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A), On Account Of Long-Term Capital Gain.

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961) was shared by ITO, Ward-1(1), Jamnagar vide letter dated 20.06.2017. The assessment proceeding u/s 147 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred as "Act") was initiated after taking necessary approval from the competent authority and accordingly a notice u/s 148 was issued on 31/03/2021 by the then jurisdictional assessing officer

NARMADABEN RAJIVBHAI UGHREJA,MORBI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

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

1 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts, in not considering the request for Grant of\nPersonal hearing through VC, and passing ex-parte order, presuming as if no response is filed\nby appellant. Principles of Natural Justice are violated.\n2. Ld. AO has erred in law as well as in facts in making addition

SMT. MUMTAJBANU A. JIVANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), AMRELI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50C of the Act inserted by Finance Act 2018,which section required substitution of the actual sale consideration received on sale of land with its stamp duty value where found higher for the purposes of computing capital gain earned on sale of land, any difference in the actual sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation to the extent

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. 13. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

YASMEEN WASEEM PARMAR ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT , JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

50C of the Act. ITA.194/Rjt/2024/AY.2013-14 Yasmeen Waseem Parmar (ii).Sale consideration should be taken at Rs. 67,53,857/- (being share @9.27%), as against Rs. 50,63,325/- (share @6.95%), taken by the assessee. (iii) As per the DVO, Rajkot's report dated 27.10.2023, the purchase cost should be taken at Rs. 84,357/-, as on 01/04/1981, as against

AAMNABEN GAFAR MADKIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(10), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.761/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Amana Gafar Madakiya Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(10), Jamnagar, Ghela Patel Delo, Head Post Aaykar Bhawan, Nr Subhas Office, Ghachiwad, Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Jamnagar-361001 Highway, Jamnagar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bylpm2878L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per A. L. Saini, Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 07.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Dated 30/03/2022, U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

1, 3, 4 and 7, therefore, we dismiss these grounds, as not pressed. 4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual.The assessee`s case for the assessment year2013-14 was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” in short) for scrutiny on the following reasons