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

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

term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case pertains to the assesses Smt. Mansukhlal Khimji Khimashiya (HUF) for AY 2012-13. The details of the same are as under: Name of the assesses PAN AY Date of Addition made towards Assessment penny

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

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

term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case pertains to the assesses Smt. Mansukhlal Khimji Khimashiya (HUF) for AY 2012-13. The details of the same are as under: Name of the assesses PAN AY Date of Addition made towards Assessment penny

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)

term capital gains of Rs.22,02,745/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company named, Praneta Industries Limited. The Hon'ble ITAT held that the claim of 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

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

short\n‘the Ld. PCIT'], has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35,925/-, has been shown\nfrom sale of 12,72,000 shares of Atlanta Infra& Finance Limited, with\nscript code 530479 (formerly known

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

short\n‘the Ld. PCIT'], has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the records, it was noticed by\nld. PCIT that long term capital gain of Rs.1,32,35,925/-, has been shown\nfrom sale of 12,72,000 shares of Atlanta Infra& Finance Limited, with\nscript code 530479 (formerly known

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

shortly are as follows: The assessee before us, is a hindu undivided family (HUF), and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 12.10.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,48,650/-.In this case, information in respect of the penny stock transaction made by the assessee in F.Y.2012-13 was available as per the information module. At that

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

short term capital gain as cost of improvement as being amount of premium paid for conversion of land. It is also noted, that the assessee has neither filed revised return of income in response to notice u/s 148 dtd. 17-02-2010 nor given any clarification on the issues covered therein. Also in the return of income filed

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S S. KUMAR,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

short term capital gain on sale of this wind mill, thus calculated by the AO is of Rs.3,09,36,845/-. 5. Against the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue came before us and stated that learned CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the disallowance

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

short time. Therefore, we find that\nassessing officer made the addition based on the guess work. The Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in Umacharan Shah & brothers Vs CIT (37 ITR 271) held that suspicion\nhowsoever strong, may be cannot substitute the place of evidence. Similarly the\nHon'ble Supreme Court case of Omar Salav Mohammad Sait (37 ITR 151 SC) also

MANOJBHAI C. KAMDAR,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) Manojbhai C. Kamdar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), A-47, Aalap Green City, Raiya Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360007 Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adgpk8679J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. D. Lalchandani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

disallowance of rebate claimed under section 87A of the Act.” 3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 12.08.2025, passed by the Division Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana vs. ITO, in ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2024-25, wherein the issue

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.

short term capital gain of Rs.37,79,938/- was thus worked out and the same was claimed as deduction under section 54B of the Act. Further perusal of the details furnished in respect of capital gain revealed that capital asset was held by the assessee for less than two years and deduction claimed under section 54B was therefore incorrectly claimed

BHIKHALAL DAYALAL PAUN,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed”

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhikhalal Dayalal Paun Vs. The Acit , Circle– 2(1), 2- Patel Park, Opp. Bhartiya School, Nr. Rajkot - 360003 Satellite Chowk, Pedak Road, Rajkot – 360003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiapp6506A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

disallowing the short-term capital loss of Rs. 20,64,509/-. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 125 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay

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

short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 126/Rjt/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 2 M/s. Chandrakant H. Kakkad vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the income at Rs. 11,21,230/- as against return income of Rs. 97,838/- and there by endorsing

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

short term capital gain Assessing Officer, however, treated said income as income from business - He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on ground that assessee had produced inaccurate particulars Whether since amount in question was truthfully reported in returns of income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable - Held, yes (Para 3).” CIT v. Bennett Coleman

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

Short Term Capital Gain' of Rs. 45,03,271/-. It was noticed that the land ad measuring 7339.74 Square Yards, at Survey No. 59/3, was purchased by the assessee on 18.01.2011, for a consideration of Rs.78,71,170/- (Rs.75,00,000/- cost and other expenses like stamp duty, registration fee etc, of Rs.3,71,170/-). Out of the total land

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

short) dated 16.3.2018 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised are as under: “1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in deleting the addition made by AO u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.1,93,69,473/- 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in deleting the addition made by AO u/s.69C

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

short “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. Asstt. Year 2014-15 2 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming

HIMESH R. SHAH,JAMNAGAR. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Himesh R. Shah Vs. Acit, Cir.3 Parikh & Co. Jamnagar. Ranjit Road Jamnagar 361 001. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.S. Varia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr)

short) dated 25.1.2019 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) Jamnagar ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 6,30,455 made to total income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act read with rule 8D of Income-Tax Rules made