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

Property. It also invested in the share market and earned capital gain during the year under consideration. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.12.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 20,65,320/-. A copy of the return of income and computation of income for ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF the year under appeal, were

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

Property. It also invested in the share market and earned capital gain during the year under consideration. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.12.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 20,65,320/-. A copy of the return of income and computation of income for ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF the year under appeal, were

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

35 ITR 416(SC) for the proposition that if credits are found in the business account of the assessee then the Income-tax authorities are entitled to treat the receipts as business receipts chargeable to tax and further that when amount is found credited in books maintained for business then it is not unreasonable inference to draw that

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

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

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

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

35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12.\nDuring the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

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

35,85,433/-. Therefore, assessing officer proposed to levy the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, on Rs.1,04,61,096/-.\n12.\nDuring the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply before the\nassessing officer, the relevant portion of the assessee's submission is reproduced\nas under:\n\"6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained

SAHADE vs. INH VAJESINH VAGHELA,RAJKOTVS.ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sahadevsinh Vajesinh Vaghela, Vs The Dcit, B-51, Prayag B, Nr. Hotel Mohit, Circle-1(2), Sir Harilal Gosalia Marg, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Pan : Abopv 3578 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dixit Tanna, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

Section 57 of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, in the present case, is an individual and filed his return of income declaring the total income at Rs. 14,35,230/-, which was derived from house property and other sources. The assessee has borrowed funds from the bank for an amount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI DEEPAK MOHANLAL PURSWANI, RAJKOT

house property and business losses of Rs.\n52,358/-. Thus, total income of Rs.8,17,320/- has been offered. A Search, Seizure\nand Survey action was carried out by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Rajkot in\nthe case of leading real estate builders of Rajkot and their key associates on\n24.08.2021. Four different groups were covered

M/S. PATEL COPPER PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (1) (4), , RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. M/S. Patel Copper Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, A-76, Aashopalav Bunglows, Ward 2(1)(4), Nr. Satya Sai Hospital, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aagcp 6173 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr Dr

property at Rs.7,35,000/- @ Rs.642/- per square metre whereas the valuer has estimated the value of the land at Rs.8,000/- per sq. yard without giving any basis of such valuation. Thus the land which has been acquired during the year itself at Rs.8,74,460/- and whose jantri value is only Rs.7,35,000/- is 5 M/s. Patel

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)

35 (Gujarat HC) and (2) Shri Sachay Mataji Mandir Vikas Trust (2024) 165 taxmann.com 306 (Rajkot Tribunal). (3) Further, even if it is treated as established for the benefit of particular religion i.e. Sajisavai Sampraday, then also a section of public is as good as public at large, hence registration cannot be denied (1) Hiralal Bahgwati

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)

35 (Gujarat HC) and (2) Shri Sachay Mataji Mandir Vikas Trust (2024) 165 taxmann.com 306 (Rajkot Tribunal). (3) Further, even if it is treated as established for the benefit of particular religion i.e. Sajisavai Sampraday, then also a section of public is as good as public at large, hence registration cannot be denied (1) Hiralal Bahgwati

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

housing projects should be estimated by applying the uniform rate\nof 10% on “on-money”. Therefore, considering the mandatory judgement of the\njurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani\nDevelopers Pvt. Ltd(Supra) and considering the peculiar facts of the assessee's\ncase, narrated above, we are of the view that profit estimation

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

housing projects should be estimated by applying the uniform rate of 10% on “on-money”. Therefore, considering the mandatory judgement of the jurisdictional Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Pvt. Ltd(Supra) and considering the peculiar facts of the assessee’s case, narrated above, we are of the view that profit estimation

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

housing projects should be estimated by applying the uniform rate\nof 10% on “on-money”. Therefore, considering the mandatory judgement of the\njurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani\nDevelopers Pvt. Ltd(Supra) and considering the peculiar facts of the assessee's\ncase, narrated above, we are of the view that profit estimation

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

housing projects should be estimated by applying the uniform rate\nof 10% on “on-money”. Therefore, considering the mandatory judgement of the\njurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Ms. Jay Kesar Bhavani\nDevelopers Pvt Ltd(Supra) and considering the peculiar facts of the assessee's\ncase, narrated above, we are of the view that profit estimation

SHRI HEMAL MANHARBHAI VAISHNAV,VERAVAL-362266 vs. THE ITO WARD-4,, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. I.T.A No. 201/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Hemal Manharbhai Vaishnav vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and receiving salary income and interest income