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

section 24(a) is allowed. Therefore, the income from deemed let out property is calculated as under: Description of the Value of the Deemed rent Less:Standard Taxable rent property property as per the @7% of the value deduction of (In Rs) balance sheet of the of the property as 30% u/s24(a) assessee per balance

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

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-.\n14. Issue 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

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue 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

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

section 271(1) (C), of the Act, to the tune of\nRs.35,55,728/-\n14. Issue 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

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

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

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT 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

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

house property during the year under consideration. Hence, only assessee claimed interest on self-occupied property and not shown any deemed rent income. 7. Regarding room rent expenses of Rs. 23,74,186/-, site expenses of Rs. 28,93,270/-, and salary overtime expenses, the assessee submitted as follows before the learned PCIT: (a)Regarding Room Rent Expenses: the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

RANCHODBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI DHAMI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 431/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ranchodbhai Karamshibhai Dhami. Vs. Ito Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot. M. N. Manvar & Co. Ca, 504, Star Plaza, Nr. Circuit House, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/ 12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/05/2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Followed: 1). Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Short Term Capital Gain Made By Ao Rs. 29,56,695/- U/S 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For The Income In The Nature Of Business

House, Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABTS8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. N. Manvar, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19/ 12/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order

PRAMUKH ARANYA DEVELOPERS,JUNAGADH vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

House Property\" u/s.22 r.w.s.23 of the Act, which\nhas resulted into under assessment,as per learned PCIT, to the tune of\nRs.84,86,212/-.\n11.About the first issue, regarding unsecured loan, without charging interest\ngiven to family members and associated concerns, wherein the PCIT has\nworked out the interest to the tune of Rs.1,09,21,304/-. The Ld.Counsel\nsubmitted