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

94,81,129/-, made in the case of Babubhai MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Pr.CIT 5 Kanjibhai Sakariya, assessee brother) as narrated in the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 in the case of assessee brother Shri Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya. The assessing officer has not properly verified/ examined the facts of the case and the issue under consideration. Therefore, assessment order has been passed

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

94 days which is falling during the covid-19 period, therefore, the same should be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. DR did not raise any objection on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in pursuance to the judgment

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

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

94\nTaxman164 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Narasiman (1999) 236 ITR 327 (SC) (iii) PCIT vs.\nJuptiter Capital (P.) Ltd. [1981] 170 taxmann.com 305 (SC) (iv) Vazir Sultan\nTobacoo Co. Ltd. [1981] 7 Taxman 28 (SC) (v) Southern Technologies Ltd. vs.\nJCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) (vi) Vijaya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) (vii) PCIT\nvs. Torrent

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

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 RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

7. It was also pointed out that Department’s appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) approving the assessee’s basis of computing profits from its eligible business for the purpose of creation of special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been dismissed by the ITAT on account of the tax effect being

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

capital gain and other sources of income. The return was filed on 18.11.2009 declaring net income of Rs. 5, 40,010/-. The case was passed under Section 143(1) of the Act upon noticed that there is an unsecured loan of Rs. 65,73,083/- to KRN Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and a cash was deposited before issuing a cheque

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 68 of the Act.\"\nHowever, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of\nthe assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity,\nPage | 14\nITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13\nKrushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja\ngenuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made\naddition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.\n24.\nOn appeal, by the assessee

PARAS MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

94,760/- (Rs 81,29,500 + Rs 53,65,260). Against this, Rs. 48,75,463/- was already claimed last year against capital gain which arose in that year and thus reduced his capital gain to that extent last year. Therefore, the net investment made was only Rs. 86,19,297/-. Thus, the claim

SMT. MUMTAJBANU A. JIVANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), AMRELI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

94,15,000/- as against Rs. 80,00,000/- declared by the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee objected to the valuation of the property by the DVO and also contended that the difference in the DVO valuation and purchase value of the property being merely 15%, there was no need to make any addition to the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI JAGJIVAN RANCHHODBHAI SAKHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue, are dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 34,95,274/-, Other income of Rs. 66,940/- and deduction as per Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,91,000/-. On 27-09-2021, the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 7,29,10,595/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. JAGJIVAN RANCHHODBHAI SAKHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue, are dismissed

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

Capital Gain of Rs. 34,95,274/-, Other income of Rs. 66,940/- and deduction as per Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,91,000/-. On 27-09-2021, the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 7,29,10,595/-. A Search, Seizure and Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit