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

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 of Rs. 1,19,286/- only on the same. However, the AO found that the value on which stamp duty paid was of Rs. 5,79,991/- only. On objection by the assessee, the AO made reference to the valuation officer as per the provision of section 50C(2

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

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

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 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

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 45(2). The Ld.CIT(A)-1 ought to have appreciated that this is a technical error and he being a fact finding authority, ought to have directed the AO to recomputed capital gain u/s.45(3) r.w.s 50C

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A No. 121/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT “01. That the Learned C.I.T. (A) 2, Rajkot has grievously erred in confirming that the reassessment proceedings

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

gain in pursuance to the provisions of section 50C of the Act. However, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50C of the Act provides the authority to the assessee to disagree with the value taken for the purpose of the stamp duty as the sale consideration for calculating the capital

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

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation

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

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. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant clearly submitted that the actual market value is lower and made an alternate request to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2

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)

Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence

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)

Gain of Rs. 16,80,923/- by Ld. AO by denying the cost of improvement for want of necessary supporting documents. 4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law by confirming addition u/s 50C for substituting Jantri value of assets which is higher than actual sale price without considering the fact that the land is not a capital asset. Hence

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.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)" erred on facts as also in law in rejecting the ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued

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)

2)(vii)(b) of the Act. He pointed out that by virtue of third proviso to section 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

ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2,56,480/-. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 148 of the act on 27th December, 2013. The case was reopened on the reason that assesse has not shown long term capital gain from sale of commercial property as per the provision of section 50C