ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

housing development. 2. Eligible Business: The deduction applies exclusively to profits derived from the eligible business activities mentioned above. 3. Creation of Special Reserve: The entity must transfer up to 20% of the eligible profits to a special reserve, as reflected in the financial statements. Necessity of Claiming Through Profit and Loss Account 1. Legal Compliance: The Income

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

house for purchase of another residential property prior to due date of filing of return of income under section 139(4), his claim for exemption under section 54 was to be allowed 8. Respectfully following the decision of various High Court/Tribunals on this issue, we are hereby allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. 9. The next issue

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14.\nIssue No.2- Deemed rent of more than one properties reflected in the\nBalance Sheet, Rs.1,80,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, on\nverification of the audited accounts filed by the assessee, along with return of\nincome, it was noticed by the assessing officer

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1) M/S.Aryan Arcade P.Ltd. Rajkot. Vs C/O. Milestone Property Mg Basement Grant Central Mall Rajkot.

house property as per provisions of section 24(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act), d) Again reiterate the fact that, as discussed earlier in show cause and our contention, we submit that, there was introduction of capital in the form of OFCD to pay the OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF MALL BUILDING. To justify our claim

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

section 11 will arises. Whether the consideration is reasonable or excessive is to be judged from the fair market value of such consideration between two unrelated parties in arm’s-length situation. 9. Now the next question is whether the consideration paid by the assessee Trust to the specified persons is reasonable or not. The ITA No.15 & 16/RJT/2015 10 assessee

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

section 11 will arises. Whether the consideration is reasonable or excessive is to be judged from the fair market value of such consideration between two unrelated parties in arm’s-length situation. 9. Now the next question is whether the consideration paid by the assessee Trust to the specified persons is reasonable or not. The ITA No.15 & 16/RJT/2015 10 assessee

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJI KHIMJI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRASL CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

SHRI LALJIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHUJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” It is also pertinent to note that in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) Hon’ble Court has observed that return for Asstt.Years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 were accepted under section

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.

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 I.T.A No. 369/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 11 was also used by the trust. Thus the assessing officer is not correct in making comparison with the municipal

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

11,206/- of the capital gains to tax. 4. The Ld.DR, however, pointed out that there was several conditions imposed u/s.54F of the Act for claiming the quantum of capital gain exemption under the said section. He drew our attention to the provisions of the section 54F of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- Section - 54F, Income

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

11. Further, as regard the proposal to levy penalty on addition made of Rs. 1,80,000/-. On account of deemed rent from house property, it is to submit that during the course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income of Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However, while

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

11. Further, as regard the proposal to levy penalty on addition made of Rs. 1,80,000/-. On account of deemed rent from house property, it is to submit that during the course of assessment proceedings, I had suo-moto offered deemed rental income of Rs. 72.000/-p.a. looking to the locality and standardized rent in the area. However, while

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

property, the assessee has submitted the details of stock in trade and sundry debtors (export) aggregating to Rs.32.55 Crores and interest-free funds of Rs.28.34 Crores, during the year.Thus, it is clear that the capital borrowed for the purpose of business has been apparently used for the purpose of business. The assessing officer has disregarded huge interest-free funds