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

loss. Be that as it may , even if such loan is by the Kolkata route, it is for the A.O to conclusively prove the same. This has not been done by the A.O. Considering the factual matrix and the discussion as above, it is held that no addition u/s.68 is warranted. The addition is directed to be deleted.” 5.8 Thus

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

loss. Be that as it may , even if such loan is by the Kolkata route, it is for the A.O to conclusively prove the same. This has not been done by the A.O. Considering the factual matrix and the discussion as above, it is held that no addition u/s.68 is warranted. The addition is directed to be deleted.” 5.8 Thus

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

loss. Be that as it may , even if such loan is by the Kolkata route, it is for the A.O to conclusively prove the same. This has not been done by the A.O. Considering the factual matrix and the discussion as above, it is held that no addition u/s.68 is warranted. The addition is directed to be deleted.” 5.8 Thus

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

loss. Be that as it may , even if such loan is by the Kolkata route, it is for the A.O to conclusively prove the same. This has not been done by the A.O. Considering the factual matrix and the discussion as above, it is held that no addition u/s.68 is warranted. The addition is directed to be deleted.” 5.8 Thus

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

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

capital gain through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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

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

capital gain through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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

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

capital gain through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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

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

capital gain through penny stock even though the modus operandi adopted by the assessee matches with modus operandi mentioned in the said SOP. 10. The learned PCIT, therefore noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has not verified the transactions of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making

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

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 (LTCG), which is fictitious, therefore assessee had defraud the Revenue, by paying the less income tax. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that fraud vitiates everything and considering the sudden jump in the price of the share, it can be said that assessee received the penny stock gain in order to off-set the loss

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 gains cannot be allowed in view of the facts that it was a penny stock company and that there was no reason for such a high jump in the price of its share. In a similar case of 'Penny Stock', where LTCG was shown by the assessee, the ITAT, Nagpur in the case of Shri Sanjay Bimalchand Jain I.T.A

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

gains). It is also evident that the appellant does not intend to furnish the details so as to cover the grounds on which the AO made the addition and determined the total income. 5.4 Under the circumstances I am also of the considered opinion that sending this additional evidences (print outs of icicidirect.com) to the AO under Rule

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

capital gains can be levied in these set of facts. Secondly, the assessee submitted that as held in the case of CIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprise 322 ITR 80, unless there is deliberate default, penalty for concealment cannot be levied. Thirdly, the assessee submitted that since the appeal of the assessee against the quantum order of the ITAT stands admitted

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

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

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

gain should have been shown\nirrespective of treatment in book of account. Therefore, ld CIT(A), based on these\nfacts, confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer.\n10. Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee, pleaded on behalf\nof assessee that there was reduction in the capital and the assesssee has “written\noff\" the investments

MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, , GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain. The ground of appeal on this account is accordingly dismissed. 24 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A. The assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 17 and contended that It is stated that

SHRI MANISH GYANCHAND JAIN ,GANDHIDHAM vs. THEACIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gain. The ground of appeal on this account is accordingly dismissed. 24 A.Y. 2016-17 and 4 others 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A. The assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 17 and contended that It is stated that