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

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

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

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

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)

Section 250 has disputed the Long-term 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

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' and (v) 'income from other sources' - cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court the source of gold confiscated was not identifiable and hence adjustment

SMT. LILABEN BABUBHAI SAKHIYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 45(3) of the Act. As per the working given by the assessee in the statement of total income, the land was acquired on 31-07-2008 for " 9,45,130/- and this capital asset was transferred on 02-04-2010 for a consideration of " 90 lakhs. A short-term capital gain

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

90,574/- as business income of the assessee by adding to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which came to be confirmed by the AO for Rs. 19,628/- being 100% of amount of tax sought to be evaded on account of concealment of particulars

HUSHENBHAI ISMAILBHAI KAATARIYA,UNA vs. ITO-WARD 4, VERAVAL

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.387/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4, 202-03 Dhruv Complex Una, Yogeshwar Bhavan, Opp. S.T. Opp. K. V. School, Una, Bus Stamd, Junagadh-362560 Veraval- 362265 Gujarat Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bmspm1645L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: Assessment Year. 2012-13 Hushenbhai Ismailbhai Kaatariya v. ITO 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order

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

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

90,530/-against Returned Book loss of\nRs.28,40,37,610/-.\n2. Grounds of Appeal in relation to computation of book profit u/s 115JB\nHon. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts in\n(i). confirming addition made by assessing officer of Rs. 73.99 crores to the book profits\nunder Clause (1) of Explanation 1 to Section

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

90,087/- (Rs.20,18,52,087 + Rs.1,60,38,000). Gandhi Reality(I) Pvt. Ltd Consequently, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide Order dated 05.10.2021, has quashed the Assessment Order dated 20.04.2021 and directed the Department to proceed with the assessment process under the provisions of Section 144B of the Act, after issuance of the prior show cause notice

SHRI VIJAY JAMNADAS VINCHHI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A No. 309/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Shri Vijaybhai Jamnadas Vinchhi. vs. ITO 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 58 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee

M/S. LADO CERAMIC PVT. LTD.,BELA (RANGPAR), DIST. MORBI. vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

90,000/-. Further, it was observed that the assessee has also availed fresh unsecured loans aggregating to Rs. 1,88,99,850/- from 26 persons during the year and out of such 26 persons, 18 persons happened to be share-holders. Perusal of the records further revealed that the assessee furnished copies of IT, Bank Statements and Confirmations from

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

90,000/-) should not be added to total income under Long Term Capital Gain by invoking section 50C of Act. Dilip

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

FRIENDS SALT WORKS & ALLIED INDS.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE GANDHIDHAM,, GANDHIDHAM

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) by Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1-4-2004, there was no prohibition to claiming interest paid in respect of borrowings for acquisition of capital assets till such time it is first put to use in subject assessment year” “Temporary approach road, central control room/store, Transformer yard, Grid line, metering yard, vacuum circuit breakers, additional

FRIENDS SALT WORKS AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES,GANDHIDHAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

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

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

section 36(1)(iii) by Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1-4-2004, there was no prohibition to claiming interest paid in respect of borrowings for acquisition of capital assets till such time it is first put to use in subject assessment year” “Temporary approach road, central control room/store, Transformer yard, Grid line, metering yard, vacuum circuit breakers, additional

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

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital and Reserve Fund of Rs. 195 crore. So, the proposed disallowance is not justifiable. 7. In view of the grounds mentioned as above your Appellant requests your Honour to appreciate the fact that re-opening of the assessment as above is completely erroneous and disregard with the Act, and order under section 263 is required to be quashed