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

capital gain arises. Page 5 of 11 Radhika Jewellers 8. However, the assessing officer rejected the above reply of the assessee and held that the provisions of section

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

8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has claimed the Long- Term Capital Gain (in short “LTCG”) and entire details ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai

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

8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has claimed the Long- Term Capital Gain (in short “LTCG”) and entire details ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai

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 Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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 Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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 Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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 Act, (these four different assessees) have not proved the genuineness of the transactions. A sample assessment order (appeal effect) in ITA No.03/RJT/2024, in the case of Mansukhlal Khimji K HUF, for assessment year 2012–13, is reproduced below: “4.6 Conclusion drawn-As the assessee has claimed income from capital gain to the tune of Rs. 8

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

8. Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) at appellate stage. The same needs annulment. 9. The appellant craves leave to add / alter / amend and / or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing take place.” Kanjibhai Bhimjibhai Rangani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2007-08 3. The brief facts of the case

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)

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.3,12,35,919 was disallowed and accordingly total sale proceeds of Rs.3,28,81,890/- from the sale of scrips of 'PS IT Infrastructure &Services Ltd (Formerly known as Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd) was assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and to be taxable

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)

capital gain while invoking provisions of section 50 C but erred in not considering deduction due in respect of purchase cost with index 3. The Id CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in passing appeal order on 30-06-2025 without considering the compliance made by the assessee in respect of hearing notice dated 21- 05-2025 vide

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 claimed u/s. 10(38) is in accordance with the provision of the Act. There is no finding of the learned assessing officer as to why the claim of the assessee based on this evidence is not in accordance with the law. Not only that, but the learned assessing officer has also added the amount

AMIBEN RAJESHKUMAR PUNATAR,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.24/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar, बनाम/ Ito, Ashish, 41-New Jagnath Plot, Vs Ward – 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001(Gujarat) Rajkot "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahrpp4181F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

capital Page 4 of 8 ITA No. 24/Rjt/2026/AY 2015-16 Amiben Rajeshkumar Punatar gain had already been examined by the assessing officer in the regular assessment under section

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

8. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that addition under section 69 has to be separately made following the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT (supra) and no set off against business loss has to be allowed. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

capital gain. The order is squarely applicable in the case of the assessee as the facts are quite the same. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is held that LTCG claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by you is derived from penny stocks and it should be treated as your undisclosed income

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

gains or under any other head of income. In connection with reference invited to section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B(1) of the Act, by you, for chargeability of the interest income under the said section, I would like to state that interest as stipulated under the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) of the Income

SHRI VASANTRAI PURSOTAM KACHALIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

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) (‘CIT(A)’), dated 04.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 23.11.2018. Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia 2. Although, this appeal filed

URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Urvashi Girishbhai Lal, 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 8

SHRI BABUBHAI NARANBHAI SAKHIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act was issued on 12.1.2016 to the assessee. The assessee after taking two adjournments filed his written submission. In para-3 of the submission, the assessee claimed that the actual transfer of the capital asset was on 15.8.2010 and due to typographical error it was mentioned as 15.4.2010. Thus, the assessee contended that the land