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

72,000/- and disallowed the same by adding to the total income of assessee. 29. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: The second limb is that, no disallowance is called for as the appellant is having sufficient non-interest bearing share capital

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

72,000/- and disallowed the same by adding to the total income of assessee. 29. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: The second limb is that, no disallowance is called for as the appellant is having sufficient non-interest bearing share capital

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA J.BHIMANI,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has also filed a cross objection but as learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits, it merely supports this order of the CIT(A) and is not, therefore, pressed. The CO is thus dismissed as not pressed. 2. Coming to the appeal filed

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35,925/-, has been shown\nfrom sale of 12,72

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

section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35,925/-, has been shown\nfrom sale of 12,72

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

capital gains then it can be set off against any income assessable under another head. Section 71A and section 71B provide for carry forward of set off of loss from house property. Section 72

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

capital gain was assessed at ₹ 43,82,175/-i.e. at the same figure which was originally filed in the return of income. The assessment of the assessee was reopened under section 148 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had transferred ownership rights of room number 88, 1st floor, Sitaram building, Mumbai for ₹ 6,72

SHRI JAYANTILAL P. SATIKUNVER,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.469/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11)

section 45(2) of the Act and therefore the same is liable to tax under the head capital gain. The cost of acquisition of such gold received as a gift was - 90,05,389.00 and the same was converted at the market value at -1.72 crores leading to a difference of - 81,94,611.00 which represents the short-term capital

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

72,000\n1,53,95,781/-\nPB-1,\nPage 39-55\n19.\nFrom the above facts, it is vivid that during the assessment proceedings, the\nassessing officer conducted sufficient enquiry in respect of long-term capital gain.\nAccording to us, the present order of assessing officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act,\ndated 26.12.2017 of the Act cannot

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A\nor sub-section (3) of section 80J.\"\n4. For deciding this issue, it is necessary for us to examine the object of introducing section\n115J which can be easily deduced from the Budget Speech of the then Finance Minister of India\nmade in the Parliament while

THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub- ITA Nos.130-131/RJT/2017 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 section (1) of section 72

SHRI VELJI RAMJI PINDORIYA, NARANPUR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.199/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer, Shri Velji Ramji Pindoriya, Ward-2, Vs. C/O. M/S. Gangji Ramji, Bhuj. P.O. Naranpar, Tal. Bhuj

72,000/- on 1-12-2008 and resultant gain of Rs.28,12,000/- was claimed as exempt as the land sold was not a capital asset within the meaning of section

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

capital loss. In view of this, the AO has correctly observed that the appellant was not maintaining books of account in respect of share transactions and has correctly levied the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for failure to keep on maintain books of accounts and documents etc as required u/s. 44AA of the Act. In view of these facts

ASHOK SHANKARNARAYAN HEBBAR,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

capital loss. In view of this, the AO has correctly observed that the appellant was not maintaining books of account in respect of share transactions and has correctly levied the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for failure to keep on maintain books of accounts and documents etc as required u/s. 44AA of the Act. In view of these facts

VAGHUBHA DANUBHA ZALA,WANKANER vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT/ THE ITO, WARD-1, WANKANER

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

72,07,000. The AO treated it as a capital asset, leading to an addition of Rs. 3,32,40,000. The assessee argued it was rural agricultural land, exempt from capital gains, and appealed the CIT(A) order. The CIT(A) denied the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee

SHRI SUBIR YUDHISTHIR DAS,BELAPUR, THANE (MAHARASTRA) vs. THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Capital Gain on entire receipt. 10. Thus, the Income considered by the Ld. A.O. is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the Grounds and submission of further additional documents.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time-barred

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

capital expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also half-heartedly submitted that this alternative plea of the applicability of section 28 and section 37 was not raised by the assessee before the authorities

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

capital expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue also half-heartedly submitted that this alternative plea of the applicability of section 28 and section 37 was not raised by the assessee before the authorities