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)

54B of the Act is not allowable to you and it should be disallowed 5.Therefore, the order passed by the assessing oficer is prima facie erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Kisho Babubhai Sakhiya The Pr.Cit-1 Khodiyar Krupa Vs Rajkot. 3, Tanti Park Corner Rajkot.

section 54B of the Act, the capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by (the assessee being an individual, or a HUF) for agricultural purposes which means that the stipulated 2 years of agricultural activity should be before the transfer of the capital asset/Therefore

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.

Section 54B, the assessee must establish that the land should be used for agriculture purpose for a period of two years prior to the date of transfer. The assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate that the lands were used for agriculture purpose to claim deduction u/s 54B of the Act. It is seen that the land

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowing the exemption of Rs. 35,07,459/- as the claimed under Section 54F of the Act by the assessee. The order is, thus, quashed. Hence, assessee's appeal is allowed. 7.1 In the case of CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 157 Taxman 398 (Gauhati), the High Court on similar facts held that assessee is eligible for claiming deduction

SHREEJI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the Assessee. There were, as rightly noted by the ITAT, unconnected issue s and the assessment order could not have been held to be “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue” when

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

disallowance of claim under section 54F of the Act, made by the Assessing officer which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny under CASS. ITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Dushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO (4) The assessee craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. The relevant material

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

disallowance of claim under section 54F of the Act, made by the Assessing officer which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny under CASS.” 13. We have gone through the assessment order. As it is evident from the recital of the Assessing Officer, on page no. 1 of his order, stating that : “the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment