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

properties the\nannual value of the house or houses, other than the self-occupied one shall\nbe determined under sub-section (1), as if such house or houses had been\nlet out. However, the assessing officer has not gone into this aspect of the\nresidential units reported in the balance sheet of the assessee, which\nrendered the assessment order erroneous

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

2. During the financial year 2014-15 we have sold our inherited agriculture land for a value of Rs. 38250000/- this property is our inherited property and we have held this property before 01/04/1981 so we have receive a valuation report from approved valuer for value as on 01/04/1981 for claiming a cost of acquisition, 3. In our IT Return

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

SOPAN DEVELOPERS,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.96/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2017-18)

house property on notional basis under section 22 read with section 23 of the Act but the assessee has not done so. According to the Ld. PCIT, this fact was not verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice dated 13 January

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

section 263 of the Act on page no. 2 to 3.\n6. In response to above notice, the assessee has filed its reply before learned\nPCIT stating that assessment order under consideration passed by the assessing\n3 Page\nM/s. Pramukh Aranya Developers v. PCIT\nITA No.372/Rjt/2024AY. 2018-19\nofficer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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

house property. In view of the above, it is clearly apparent that there should have been better application of mind by the AO during the assessment proceedings and there should have been proper verification of the above discussed aspects in order to determining the correct taxable income. In the light of the above observations, it is clear that the assessment

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but by going into the merits and making an addition, and not by way of a remand, recording that there was failure to investigate. There is a distinction between the failure or absence of investigation and a wrong decision/conclusion. A wrong decision/conclusion

GOJIYA BHIKHUBHAI,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

House, Plot No.25/1\nJoiser Park Estate\nB/H. Atul Petrol Pump\nJamnagar 361 001.\nThe Pr.CIT-1\nबनाम | Jamnagar.\nVs.\nGojijya Bhikhubhai and Others\nITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY:2018-19)\n2\nPAN : AIQPG 1300 В\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nनिर्धारितीकी ओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR\nराजस्वकी ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR\nसुनवाईकीतारीख

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

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

section 263 of the Act. 2. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in not dropping the proceedings u/s. 263 despite the fact that the original order passed by the AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in revising the assessment by invoking

SHRI JUGALKISHORE NATWARLAL DHOLAKIA,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

263 of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Since the issue involved in these two appeals are identical in nature, these cases are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. ITA No. 14/Rjt/2021 for AY 2015-16 is taken as a lead case. 4. We have heard

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR VACHHRAJ DHOLAKIA,,JUNAGADH vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

263 of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Since the issue involved in these two appeals are identical in nature, these cases are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. ITA No. 14/Rjt/2021 for AY 2015-16 is taken as a lead case. 4. We have heard

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

House, Gandhidham Aayakar Bhawan, Race (Kutch), Gujarat-370201 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 PAN: ABZPG6744K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 08-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. GANDHI REALITY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm

houses, bungalows, shops, flats, offices, tenements workshops, factory buildings, go-downs, warehouses, apartments, buildings, and civil works of all kinds. During the year under consideration, erstwhile Gandhi Realty (India) Private Limited having registered office at "Solitarie", Amin Marg Junction, 150 Ring Road, Nr. Pragati complex, Rajkot-360005 and PAN AACCG5189K (The Transferor Company 1" or "old GRIPL) and Crystal Organisers

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

House, Plot No.25/1 Vs. Joiser Park Estate B/H. Atul Petrol Pump Jamnagar 361 001. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 2 PAN : AIQPG 1300 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025

SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

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

House, Plot No.25/1 Vs. Joiser Park Estate B/H. Atul Petrol Pump Jamnagar 361 001. GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 2 PAN : AIQPG 1300 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/03/2025

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

house. The requirements of Section 54F are that the amounts claimed exempt should be spent within the stipulated time frame as provided in the section. (II) A total amount of Rs.1,35,30,171/- was deposited by me with Bonk of Maharashtra, Rajkot. The said amount was retained therein itself and thereafter the spending for construction has taken place from

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

house. The requirements of Section 54F are that the amounts claimed exempt should be spent within the stipulated time frame as provided in the section. (II) A total amount of Rs.1,35,30,171/- was deposited by me with Bonk of Maharashtra, Rajkot. The said amount was retained therein itself and thereafter the spending for construction has taken place from