SHRI NITINBHAI T. BHUPTANI, L.I.C,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-4,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountatn Member & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 13/Rjt/2016 & 14/Rjt/2016 & 182/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011, 2011-12 & 2012-13

exemption in respect of one self occupied property and had shown the income from other property at Rs. (-) 6454/- Other property was self occupied property. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer in his order observed as under: On verification of the statement of income the assessee claimed deduction on account of interest on capital amounting to Rs.1

SHRI SAILESHBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI HIRPARA,JETPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

exempted income and therefore also no disallowance is called for. So far as the decision in the case of Anant Mahadev Mahajan (ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench) is concerned, it was not the case of the appellant in that case he had earned tax paid profit not because of his investment/capital in the partnership firm but because of his right

BHIKHALAL PRAHALADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

house property. The case of assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and a notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, was issued on 29.03.2018 and was duly served upon the assessee, through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.07.2018, was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA email facility. Further

BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

house property. The case of assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and a notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, was issued on 29.03.2018 and was duly served upon the assessee, through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.07.2018, was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA email facility. Further

SMT. MEENABEN KETANKUMAR MAKIM,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR, CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

house properties. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 21 and submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has verified the necessary details. The Ld. AR in support of his contention drew our attention

SMT. JANKI KISHAN HINGORANI,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

exemption of the capital gain to the tune of Rs.1,10,49,413/- on account of investment in purchase of another house property

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

exempt from tax u/s 10(38) of the Income- tax Act. This claim of the assessee has been allowed by the assessing officer, without going into genuineness of the transaction based on the circumstantial evidences available on record. 6.Further, Ld. PCIT noticed that one house property

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

exempt from tax u/s 10(38) of the Income- tax Act. This claim of the assessee has been allowed by the assessing officer, without going into genuineness of the transaction based on the circumstantial evidences available on record. 6.Further, Ld. PCIT noticed that one house property

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

house property 2 ITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Dushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO for a sum of Rs. 73,27,000/-. Out of this, 50% was shown purchase of his brother Shri Paras Mehta, without executing any transfer deed or getting the sale officially registered. This transfer was only Rs. 37,01,000/-. The assessee thereafter showed huge cost

SHILPA ROHIT THAKKAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 009-10) Smt.Shilpa Rohit Thakkar The Income Tax बनाम/ 702, Guruprasad Appt. Officer Vs. B/H. Shiv Ice Cream Ward-3(4) Race Course Ring Road Rajkot Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt 2819 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

House Property. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs.10,28,919/- by denying the benefits of exemption

SHRI SAJISAVAI MOXDHAM SEVA TRUST ,SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 848 & 849/Rjt/2024 Shri Sajisavai Moxdham Seva Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Trust-Amreli, Savarkundla, Ahmedabad Amreli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbts9964K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Exemption) has passed a speaking order on merits.” 7. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(E) and further submitted that the assessee not responded to the notice dated 24-07-2022 whereby the applicant was asked to clarify that the work operation is for the benefit of public at large and also asked to reply

SHRI SAJISAVAI MOXDHAM SEVA TRUST ,SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 848 & 849/Rjt/2024 Shri Sajisavai Moxdham Seva Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Trust-Amreli, Savarkundla, Ahmedabad Amreli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbts9964K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Exemption) has passed a speaking order on merits.” 7. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(E) and further submitted that the assessee not responded to the notice dated 24-07-2022 whereby the applicant was asked to clarify that the work operation is for the benefit of public at large and also asked to reply

SMT. KUSUMBEN AMRITLAL SANGHAVI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

property before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the Revenue is this that the appellant is not entitled for ITA No. 194/Rjt/2019 (Smt. Kusumben A. Sanghavi vs. DCIT) A. Y. 2015-16 - 3- exemption under Section 54F of the Act, since the unutilized amount was not deposited by him before

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

property before filing the return of income, must necessarily be deposited in an account duly notified by Central Government, so as to be exempted. (p) Further, Section 54F(4) of the Act specifically provides that the amounts which have not been invested either in purchase / construction of house

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and interest income of Rs. 10,02,837/- from the fix deposits held with State bank of India and Indian Overseas Bank. This income was claimed as deduction u/s 80P of the Act. In respect of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the IT Act, it is seen from the assessment record that the assessee

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR VACHHRAJ DHOLAKIA,,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

house property salary and other sources during the year under consideration and no adverse facts were noticed; and, therefore, the returned income was accepted by the learned Assessing Officer. Subsequently, certain fact was found to have been received from the Range Head to this effect that while finalizing the assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed interest expenses of Rs.11

SHRI JUGALKISHORE NATWARLAL DHOLAKIA,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

house property salary and other sources during the year under consideration and no adverse facts were noticed; and, therefore, the returned income was accepted by the learned Assessing Officer. Subsequently, certain fact was found to have been received from the Range Head to this effect that while finalizing the assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed interest expenses of Rs.11

THE JT. CIT (EXEMPTIONS)(OSD), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT

In the result, the Revenue appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Us That This Similar Issue Is Being Adjudicated By The Very Same Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rjt/2015 Vide Order Dated 29.06.2022 Relating To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Further This Order Has Been Followed In Ita No. 472, 1170 & 2316/Ahd/2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 By Order Dated 31.08.2022. Now The Present Assessment Year Is 2015-16, Which Is Fully Covered By The Above Orders Of This Tribunal & Copy Of The Orders Are Also Placed On Record.

property such as period of lease, nature and quality of furnishing, lease carpet area etc. The ld.CIT(A) failed to make comparison of similar school buildings or campus and also rate of return is calculated on fair market value of the school building instead of investment. The CIT(A) also failed to explain nature of expenses claimed by the Gyanganga

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. GYANGANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar

house property, higher of municipal valuation or fair rent is taken into account. Furthermore the rental agreements clearly mention that besides building other amenities like furniture, electrical fittings, parking and open ground was also used by the trust. Thus the assessing officer is not correct in making comparison with the municipal valuation and the assessee has made excessive payment