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

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

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

section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT (A). 23.8 Once the addition made by the AO has been treated by us, holding the loan transaction and share application transaction between the assessee and M/s RNG Finlease Pvt. Ltd, as genuine, the corresponding addition made

SHRI KANJIBHAI B. RANGANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

55,020/-. The then CIT (A)-IV, Rajkot vide order dtd. 13-09-2012 has confirmed the addition of Rs. 36,34,125/- on account of capita! gain on sale of plot of land. However, he allowed deduction of Rs. 19,30,320/- in the short term capital gain as cost of improvement being amount of premium paid for conversion

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

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

55(2), and relied on Section 49(1)(e). However, the Court emphasized that Section 47 excludes the transfer of a capital asset in an approved scheme of amalgamation. The Court also highlighted that the provisions referred to by the assessee are in a Chapter related to "Capital Gains

SMT.AMARBAI DHANJI JADAVA,,BHUJ-KUTCH. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTER.TAXA.),, GANDHIDHAM.

In the result, both the appeals of the appellants are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt.Amarbhai Dhanji Jadav Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Mavji Dhanji Jadva Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessees Are In Appeals Before The Tribunal Against Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 30.1.2017 Passed On The Respective Appeals Of The Assessees For Assessment Years 2012-13. 2. Assessees Are Mother & Son & Issue Involved In Both Appeals Relates To Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Required To Be Determined In The

55,751/- construction in F.Y.2001-02 15,74,331/- Net Long Term Capital Gain Rs.23,05,719/- 6. This exercise lead to an addition of Rs.23,05,719/- in the respective hands of the appellants. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 7. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record

MAVJI DHANJI JADVA,,BHUJ-KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTER.TAXA.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals of the appellants are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt.Amarbhai Dhanji Jadav Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Mavji Dhanji Jadva Ito, International Taxation Gandhidham. C/O. Shri Nanji Kalyanji Vekariya Vs. Upalo Vas, Village-Baldiya Tal. Bhuj-Kutch 370 001. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Das, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessees Are In Appeals Before The Tribunal Against Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 30.1.2017 Passed On The Respective Appeals Of The Assessees For Assessment Years 2012-13. 2. Assessees Are Mother & Son & Issue Involved In Both Appeals Relates To Computation Of Long Term Capital Gain Required To Be Determined In The

55,751/- construction in F.Y.2001-02 15,74,331/- Net Long Term Capital Gain Rs.23,05,719/- 6. This exercise lead to an addition of Rs.23,05,719/- in the respective hands of the appellants. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 7. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record

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

55,15,000/-, which led the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 50C and make an addition of Rs. 23,26,000/- to Long Term Capital Gain

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

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 124(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in terms of which jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by on assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for reopening assessment under section 148 of the I.T Act. 2. Thee learned CIT(A)-1 has erred

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

55,000/- and 10% of such bonus ought to be considered as reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the assessee for procuring the business in the capacity of a Senior Business Associate. The Assessing Officer observed that the additional incentive bonus received by the assessee would be treated as a salary income and assessee cannot claim any deduction against salary

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. DEEP RECYCLOING INDUSTRIES,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains incorporated in sub-section (4), the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption of the said amount as contemplated under section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit to the aforesaid amounts. [Para 8] In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed. From the above judgment, we note that the provisions

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. DEEP RECYCLING IND.,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

gains incorporated in sub-section (4), the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption of the said amount as contemplated under section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit to the aforesaid amounts. [Para 8] In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed. From the above judgment, we note that the provisions

THE ITO, WARD-5,, MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. SHRI KOTAK MAYUR ARVINDBHAI, MUNDRA (KUTCH)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

capital gain and small income from interest. Return of income for the year under appeal was filed on 31.03.2008 declaring total income at Rs. 1,04,780/-. 3. On 29-10-2010 survey under section 133A was carried at the business premise of one M/s Kashish Enterprise at Bhuj. During the survey, it was found that M/s Kashish Enterprise

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

capital gain of Rs. 1.33 crores by way of sale of share of such company. 4.6 This was again affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Baulal Surana [2021] 129 taxmann.com 375 (Gujarat). 4.7 In the instant set of facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has made the following observations in the appellate order, while upholding initiation

LATE DEVJI MORARJIBHAI THAKRAR, L/R. SUNIL DEVJIBHAI THAKRAR,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, GANDHIDHAM(KUTCH)

In the result, the appeal field by the assessee is allowed

55,490/-. As the assessee has not filed any Return of Income, therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a Return of Income on 27.11.2015 declaring Nil income. The assessee objected to the Jantry Value as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and ready to get the property valued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SARVANAND SADHURAM SONVANI, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.809 To 819/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2012-13 To 2022-23) Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonwani, बनाम The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle-1, Vs. C/O. Jagdish Trading Co. Danapith, “Amruta Estate,” 2Nd Floor, Mg Rajkot-360001( Gujarat) Road,Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं जीआइ आरसं /. /. Pan No.: Afbps0008N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita (Ss) No.23&24/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22 & 2022-23) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonwani Tax,Central Circle-1, C/O. Jagdish Trading Co. Danapith, Vs. “Amruta Estate,” 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Rajkot-360001(Gujarat) Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं /. /. Pan No.: Afbps0008N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.791 To 796/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2012-13 To 2013-14 & 2017-18 To 2020-21) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम Sarvanand Sadhuram Sonwani, Tax,Central Circle-1, C/O. Jagdish Trading Co. Danapith, Vs. “Amruta Estate,” 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Rajkot-360001( Gujarat) Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं /. /. Pan No.: Afbps0008N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""थ"/Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in ITA No.793/RJT/2024, for assessment Year 2017-18, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above