PADMABEN KANTILAL RANPARA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 112A(6), which states:\n(6) Where the total income of an assessee includes any long-term capital gains

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

capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

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

capital gain of 17,33,289/- in their return of income, the A.O. formed an opinion that the said LTCG was claimed, as exempt in the scrip Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, and the same was an accommodation entry. 14. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, we noticed that the reasons recorded by the AO were

RADHIKA JEWELLERS,RAJKOT vs. DY.CIT 2 (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

6. It was also observed by the assessing officer that Shri Ashokkumar M Zinzuwadia had a showroom of Rs. 29,90,482/-, as on 30.06.2014. The Page 4 of 11 Radhika Jewellers assessing officer noted that said asset is transferred to the assessee- firm and therefore provisions of section 48 of the I.T. Act is applicable for charging capital gain

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

capital gain exemption under section 10(38), since\nthere was no evidence available on record suggesting that assessee or his broker was\ninvolved in rigging up of price of script of SNCFL, addition on account of LTCG\nclaimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted\"\n(ii).Champalal Gopiram Agarwal, [2023] 155 taxmann.com 66 (Gujarat).\n“Where

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

capital gain exemption under section 10(38), since\nthere was no evidence available on record suggesting that assessee or his broker was\ninvolved in rigging up of price of script of SNCFL, addition on account of LTCG\nclaimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted\"\n(ii).Champalal Gopiram Agarwal, [2023] 155 taxmann.com 66 (Gujarat).\n“Where

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

capital gains tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, as is evident from Paragraph 6.1 of the assessment order, the assessee also furnished certificate of Talati cum Mantri of Billiyala Gram Panchayat in which it was stated that even till today, the agricultural land is situated at a distance of 10 km from Gondal Nagar Palika. Further, during the course

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld.PCIT, as per the information, Director of Investigation, Kolkata conducted inquiries which unearthed some big syndicates involved in providing accommodation entries of long term capital gains and a total of 84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified. Thereafter, search and survey actions were Mansukhlal khimji and others v. PCIT ITA No.3

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

6) of the Act. 10. The ld Counsel further submitted that all the evidences are third- party evidences and it satisfy the requirement of the section 10(38) of the Act and without disproving the evidence the law does not empower the assessing officer without bringing anything on record to disbelieve the long term capital gain

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

capital gain and thereby, disallowing claim of\nexemption u/s 54F of the Act made by the assessee.\n(2) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the finding of the assessing officer that\nclaim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, in any case, is excessive by Rs. 14,84,766/-.\n(3). The Learned CIT(A) has erred

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain earned on sale of the aforementioned script and stated that the investment is of penny stock and made the alleged addition of Rs. 39,90,501/- under section 68 of the Act. 6

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)

6. In view of the above discussion, provisions of section 50C is applicable in the case of the assessee as he has shown less sale consideration in the sale deed executed against the Jantry rate calculated by the Stamp Duty Authority and the assessee paid stamp duty as calculated by the said authority. The capital gain

MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

section 112A(6), which states: (6) Where the total income of an assessee includes any long-term capital gains referred

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

capital gain exemption under section 10(38),\nsince there was no evidence available on record suggesting that assessee or his\nbroker was involved in rigging up of price of script of SNCFL, addition on account\nof LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted\"\n(ii)\nChampalal Gopiram Agarwal, [2023] 155 taxmann.com 66 (Gujarat).\n“Where

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

6. Regarding addition of Rs.10,06,250/- under section 69 ld. AR submitted that this has to be considered as "business income" as what is found is "business stock". It cannot have a different character than the business income. He submitted that in any case, tax has to be levied on total income after clubbing income under different heads including