THE ITO, WARD-2(2),, JAMNAGAR vs. SMT. SHITALBEN SAURABH VORA,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262-263/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ M/S.Surendranagar District D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Milk Producers Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Union Ltd. Surendranagar. Wadhwan City, Surendranagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitender Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 17/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 12/01/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Ys) 20012-13 & 2013-14. Ita Nos.262-263/Rjt/2018 A.Y.S 2012-13 To 2013-14 First, We Take Up Ita No. 262/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2013-14

2) applies, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the "due date" mentioned in explanation to section 36(1)(va). Consequently, it is held that the learned tribunal

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

2,03,55,868/- only. 26. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Assessee in its 20 A.Y.2011-12 and others own case in ITA No. 139/Rjt/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given

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

2,03,55,868/- only. 26. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Assessee in its 20 A.Y.2011-12 and others own case in ITA No. 139/Rjt/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given

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

2,03,55,868/- only. 26. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Assessee in its 20 A.Y.2011-12 and others own case in ITA No. 139/Rjt/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given

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

2,03,55,868/- only. 26. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Assessee in its 20 A.Y.2011-12 and others own case in ITA No. 139/Rjt/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given

SHRI MANSHUKH K. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

50C of the Act and " 20 lakhs was disallowed from the deduction claimed under section 54B of the Act. The Principal CIT observed that on examination of records it is seen that the assessee sold Urban agricultural land, Rajula to APMC, Rajulafor a sale consideration of " " 1.37 crores and claimed LTCG of 1.24 crores. The Principal CIT observed that during

SHRI SHARAD M. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT

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

Bench: The Sro, Rajula Vide Document No. 578/2014 On 07.04.2014 For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 1,37,24,875/-. However, The Sro, Rajula Has Assessed/Valued The Said Land For Rs. 2,51,93,900/- As Per Jantry/Guideline Value & Stamp Duty. Therefore The Difference Between The Jantry Value & The Sale Consideration Is Of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- Should Be Added As Income As Per Section 50C Of The Act.

2,51,93,900/- as per Jantry/guideline value and stamp duty. Therefore the difference between the Jantry value and the sale consideration is of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- should be added as income as per Section 50C of the Act. 2.1. Further verification of the computation of income and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act, the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S JAGJIT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.137/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) I.T.O, बनाम/ M/S Jagjit Builders & Ward-2(1), Developers, Vs. Rajkot. Ankur Apts., Dr. Floor, Aadarsh Society, B/H Ioc Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj9480A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Maurya, Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 27/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25/02/2016, 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 27/02/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13. A.Y. 2012-13 The 1St Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In 2. Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao For Rs. 10,20,62,695/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure Under Section 69C Of The Act

2 that the appellant has furnished all the necessary details and produced books of account from time to time and were test checked. Therefore, there is no basis for resorting to estimation of cost of construction as per the jantri prices. Even if addition/disallowance has to be made, it should be restricted to the discrepancy found during survey

YASMEEN WASEEM PARMAR ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT , JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

50C of the Act. ITA.194/Rjt/2024/AY.2013-14 Yasmeen Waseem Parmar (ii).Sale consideration should be taken at Rs. 67,53,857/- (being share @9.27%), as against Rs. 50,63,325/- (share @6.95%), taken by the assessee. (iii) As per the DVO, Rajkot's report dated 27.10.2023, the purchase cost should be taken at Rs. 84,357/-, as on 01/04/1981, as against

KISHOR K KASTA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4),, PORBANDAR

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Kishor K. Kasta Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), R. K. Jetty, Plot Vistar, Okha Porbandar - 361350 Porbandar (Guj) – 361350 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awbpk9704A (Assessee) (Respondent)

2. Ld. AO as well as CIT(Appeals) has erred in not providing deduction of expenditure for improvement of property without any fact finding or further verification and disallowed the expenses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before me is an Individual and filed the original return