SHRI VASHRAMBHAI GHELABHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CEN.CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

property after compromising with the party is totally wrong and it is totally imagination and presumption made. The assessee also filed a copy of affidavit made between him and Shri Dinesh B Vadher on 06.02.2013 that the agreement made between them on 29.12.2009, was not executed and therefore, Shri Vadher has paid back Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, learned

KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

property after compromising with the party is totally wrong and it is totally imagination and presumption made. The assessee also filed a copy of affidavit made between him and Shri Dinesh B Vadher on 06.02.2013 that the agreement made between them on 29.12.2009, was not executed and therefore, Shri Vadher has paid back Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, learned

SHRI KAMLESH VASHRAMBHAI RAMANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

property after compromising with the party is totally wrong and it is totally imagination and presumption made. The assessee also filed a copy of affidavit made between him and Shri Dinesh B Vadher on 06.02.2013 that the agreement made between them on 29.12.2009, was not executed and therefore, Shri Vadher has paid back Rs. 75,00,000/-. However, learned

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

15 and submitted that assessee has offered the LTCG for taxation purpose, on these six scrips, therefore, there should not be any escapement of income on the part of the assessee. The ld. Counsel also took us through the computation of total income and transactions covered by the Security Transaction Tax (STT) under Section 10(38) of the Act, which

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

15 and submitted that assessee has offered the LTCG for taxation purpose, on these six scrips, therefore, there should not be any escapement of income on the part of the assessee. The ld. Counsel also took us through the computation of total income and transactions covered by the Security Transaction Tax (STT) under Section 10(38) of the Act, which

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

housing projects in order to avail excess deduction of Section 80IB(10) of the Act.In itself, such a claim is a misrepresentation of facts which would have succeeded but for selection of case in scrutiny and detection thereof in assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that misrepresentation has led to underreporting of income, therefore, ld.CIT(A), confirmed

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

10. We notice that the set off of any trading loss against deemed income assessed under sections 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not directly discernible from sections 72 to 79 falling in Chapter-VI. To summarily refer to these provisions we note that in Chapter VI, section 70 provides set off of loss from one source against income from another

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

Property. Further, the assessee has claimed receipt of gift from\nthe assessee i.e. Smt. Ujiben K. Sakariya of Rs. 23 lacs during FY 2015-16.\nTo examine the issue, notices were issued to the assessee ( dead person during\nthe course of re-assessment proceedings. The assessing officeer noticed that\nthe assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation paid for\ncompulsory

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

house property, it is to submit that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income\nof Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However,\nwhile finalizing the assessment for the year under consideration, an addition of Rs.\n1,80,000/- was made without bringing any credible evidence

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

M/S. D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S D.M.L. EXIM PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property in India or control and management vested in India, are not satisfied in the present case. The commission expenses paid on export sales to a non-resident admittedly for services rendered outside India is not coming under the purview of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the ‘commission’ simpliciter is not fees

JITENDRASINH ZALA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

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

15,85,390/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration was selected for complete scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, the assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act') dated 06/09/2022, accepting the returned income. 4. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

15. The assessee stated that no incriminating\ndocuments indicating any unaccounted investment were found in their\npossession. Therefore, notings and jottings in the excel sheet remain\nuncorroborated and unproved. The loose paper found in possession of the\nsearched person has to be considered in accordance with the provisions of section\n132(4A) and section 292C

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

section 68 of the Act."” 23. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that assessee has failed to prove identity, ITA Nos.572&577/RJT/2015/AY.2012-13 Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions, therefore, made addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 24. On appeal, by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE vs. MARUTI ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. It(Ss)A No Assessment Assessee Name Respondent Name No. Year 1. 12/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Chetan Dhirajlal Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Pan.:Afkpr4637P 2. 13/Rjt/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Shri Nikhilbhai Jamnadas Of Income-Tax, Central Patel Circle-1, Rajkot, P-1, Decora Highland, “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Avadh Main Road, Opp. Floor, M.G. Road, Classic Party Plot Rajkot- Rajkot-360 001 360 005 Pan No.: Agipp 1294 K 3. 17/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Shri Dhirajlal Ravji Rokad Of Income-Tax, Central 1, Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Circle-1, Rajkot, Road, Near G.T. School “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Rajkot-360 001 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abopr5408A 19 & 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner Shri Rohitkumar Maganlal 4. 20/Rjt/2024 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Sanepara Circle-1, Rajkot, Kangshiyani Road, Opp. “Amruta Estate” 2Nd Sundaram Vidhyalaya, Floor, M.G. Road, Dholra Chokdi, Kothariya, Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 004 Panno.:Aaopp4848H 5. 59-60/Rjt/2023 2017-18 & Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise 2018-19 Of Income-Tax, Central Decora West Hills, Near Classic Party Plot, Opp. Circle-1, Rajkot, Kalawa Road, Rajkot-360 “Amruta Estate” 2Nd 005 Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 Panno.:Abdfm3140K 6. 228/Rjt/2023 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner M/S Maruti Enterprise Of Income-Tax, Central

10. 15-16/RJT/2024 2013-14 & Deputy Commissioner Shri Jamnadas Purshottam 2018-19 of Income-tax, Central Patel Circle-1, Rajkot, P-1, Decora Highland, Avadh Main Road, Opp. “Amruta Estate” 2nd Classic Party Plot, Rajkot- Floor, M.G. Road, 360005 Rajkot-360 001 PAN No.:AABPP6811F 11. ITA- 2017-18 Shri Jamnadas The Assistant Commissioner 60/RJT/2025 Purshottam Patel of Income

MITESHKUMAR DAYALJIBHAI PABARI,BHATIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

housing loan sanction letter wherein description of property was not mentioned, further the assessee fails to provide copy of loan agreement letter, detail of disbursal of loan or recovery certificate of loan wherein description of property mentioned. In absence of the same it could not be considered that the amount mentioned in the loan sanction letter pertains to the impugned