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

SHRI GHANSHYAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property he had stated that he took the plot in 1964 from the housing society which was constructing the bungalow for which the assessee made contribution from time to time and took possession in 1974 when only one ground floor was constructed. He had been living there and during 1986 to 1988 he had constructed the first floor

SHRI SANJAYBHAI GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property he had stated that he took the plot in 1964 from the housing society which was constructing the bungalow for which the assessee made contribution from time to time and took possession in 1974 when only one ground floor was constructed. He had been living there and during 1986 to 1988 he had constructed the first floor

SHRI KISHOR GORDHANBHAI JAKSANIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property he had stated that he took the plot in 1964 from the housing society which was constructing the bungalow for which the assessee made contribution from time to time and took possession in 1974 when only one ground floor was constructed. He had been living there and during 1986 to 1988 he had constructed the first floor

SHRI HARESH JADAVJI GHADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2006-07

34,137-). The addition needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs.3,47,300/- based on factual position which he described wrongly. The addition needs deletion. 3. The Ld. CIT\(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs.3,47,300/- erroneously applying provisions of section

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

house property 2 ITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Dushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO for a sum of Rs. 73,27,000/-. Out of this, 50% was shown purchase of his brother Shri Paras Mehta, without executing any transfer deed or getting the sale officially registered. This transfer was only Rs. 37,01,000/-. The assessee thereafter showed huge cost

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

house property income of Rs. 30,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and added back in the income of the assessee. Since the assessee has already shown a sum of Rs 21,000/- (after claiming standard deduction of 30% from gross receipts), the difference of Rs 9,000 is being added here. Penalty

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

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

house Property instead of business income and considering the same as not eligible for computing deduction u/s 801A though the Rent Income has direct nexus with the 80IA eligible business activity of the assessee, being income derived from the business and further issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Rajkot bench in assessee's case

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

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