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

6==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nH\n9. In connection with the above, it is submitted that the findings arrived at during the\ncourse of assessment proceedings cannot be said to be conclusive to justify the levy\nof penalty. The penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment\nproceedings. Therefore

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

6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained of Rs. 1,04,61,096/-on account\nof profit from derivative transaction carried out in account maintained with Standard\nBank, London it is submitted the impugned addition was made without appreciating\nthe facts and evidences on record and therefore the proposal to levy penalty on such\naddition is invalid

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

6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained of Rs. 1,04,61,096/-on account\nof profit from derivative transaction carried out in account maintained with Standard\nBank, London it is submitted the impugned addition was made without appreciating\nthe facts and evidences on record and therefore the proposal to levy penalty on such\naddition is invalid

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

6==\nITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15)\nPankaj C Lodhiya\nH\n9. In connection with the above, it is submitted that the findings arrived at during the\ncourse of assessment proceedings cannot be said to be conclusive to justify the levy\nof penalty. The penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from assessment\nproceedings. Therefore

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

6. As regard the levy of penalty on addition retained of Rs. 1,04,61,096/-on account\nof profit from derivative transaction carried out in account maintained with Standard\nBank, London it is submitted the impugned addition was made without appreciating\nthe facts and evidences on record and therefore the proposal to levy penalty on such\naddition is invalid

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Computers charged Rs.60/- per month to outsiders inc case of one-time payment and Rs.70/- per month in case of installment payment. As against this, the appellant has been charged Rs.37.30 per month per student. Thus, the fees charged to the appellant trust is reasonable and concessional. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not a case

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

6 Computers charged Rs.60/- per month to outsiders inc case of one-time payment and Rs.70/- per month in case of installment payment. As against this, the appellant has been charged Rs.37.30 per month per student. Thus, the fees charged to the appellant trust is reasonable and concessional. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not a case

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

c) the assessee has not shown any house hold withdrawals, is unwarranted,\nunjustified and bad in law.\n3. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot- 1, Rajkot, has erred in\nInvestment made in Penny Stock is treated as Bogus or treated as Cash Credit u/s.68\nof the I.T. Act, 1961, is totally unwarranted, unjustified

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.

6. The Ld.DR argued that the assesses claim to deduction of interest u/s 24(b) of the Act was untenable in law since the interest was paid not on borrowing utilized for constructing the house property rental income of which was taxed under section 23 of the Act , but on borrowing made for repaying the original borrowing so utilized

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

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

c) the assessee has not shown any house hold withdrawals, is unwarranted,\nunjustified and bad in law.\n3. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot- 1, Rajkot, has erred in\nInvestment made in Penny Stock is treated as Bogus or treated as Cash Credit u/s.68\nof the I.T. Act, 1961, is totally unwarranted, unjustified

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

House, M.G. Vs Rajkot (Respondent) Road, Rajkot PAN: ABFPG8977N (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 08-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 18-04-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order

ANILBHAI 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

6. The second ground of appeal of the appellant is that the AO has erred in law and on facts in denying the fact that lands are used for business purpose and hence made an addition under the head income from house property of Rs. 4,62,000/-. With regard to this ground of appeal, I agree with the findings

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

6. The second ground of appeal of the appellant is that the AO has erred in law and on facts in denying the fact that lands are used for business purpose and hence made an addition under the head income from house property of Rs. 4,62,000/-. With regard to this ground of appeal, I agree with the findings

SHRI BHAKTINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO 3 (1) (1), RAJKOT

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.200/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Bhakti Nagar Co Operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1) Society Ltd. (Bhaktinagar Circle, Meghani Rang Bhavan, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot) Rong Road, A D Vyas & Co, Charted Accounts, Kotecha Rajkot - 360001 Nagar Main Road, Opp Kotecha Girl’S School, Off Kalawad Road. Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2363M (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and interest income of Rs. 10,02,837/- from the fix deposits held with State bank of India and Indian Overseas Bank. This income was claimed as deduction u/s 80P of the Act. In respect of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of the IT Act, it is seen from the assessment record that the assessee

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