ASHWINBHAI CHUNILAL BHAYANI,,OKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, DWARKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.363/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani Ito, Ward-1(4) C/O. J.C. & Co., Dwarka. Vs Okha Port, Okha – 361 350. Pan : Abvpb 6284 D

20,000/- per month and accordingly tax the income from house property after giving the standard deduction. 6.1 As regards land of Ajmera estate, Rajkot (i.e. godown), the AO is directed to take fair market rentable value at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Again it is submitted by the AR of the appellant vide her submission dated 09/08/2017 that this

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

20,257/-) has been claimed u/s 24 of\nthe Act, on the said property. However, the said property is not shown in\nthe Balance-sheet.\n7. The ld PCIT also noticed that the assessee has also not shown deemed\nrent income on one residential flat at Krishna Niwas-1, JVPD, Ville Parle,\nMumbai.\n8. The ld PCIT also noticed thatthe

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

20,257/-) has been claimed u/s 24 of\nthe Act, on the said property. However, the said property is not shown in\nthe Balance-sheet.\n7. The ld PCIT also noticed that the assessee has also not shown deemed\nrent income on one residential flat at Krishna Niwas-1, JVPD, Ville Parle,\nMumbai.\n8. The ld PCIT also noticed thatthe

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

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

house property', (iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources' - cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court

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

20 months and also an indepth examination on the issues of investment made in the purchase of properties and the interest expenses incurred in relation to income from 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

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

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 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,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 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

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

20 per cent of the\nprofit of such eligible business as computed in the accounts of the assessee which accounts\nhave been audited in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 32AB.\n7. The dispute in the present case is in regard to the question whether the assessee's investment\nin the UTI is business

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

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

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

MINABEN SUDHIRBHAI SOMPURA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO WARD-1 , SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

housing loan, taken from DHFL, loan confirmation, bank statement was placed on record. The assesse also stated that her share in property is only 20% however no supporting document was filed. The assesse has also taken unsecured loan from various persons but the assesse could not prove beyond doubt about the loan. Considering the above fact and circumstance

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

properties, ld. Counsel submitted that\nassessing officer has not examined the same, therefore, to that extent order passed\nby the assessing officer is erroneous. Therefore, so far, this third issue is concerned,\norder passed by the assessing officer, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue.\n28.\nAbout unsecured loans of Rs. 1,60,29,926/-, the specific inquiries