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

63,46,541/-,\nmade on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n8.\nThe Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C

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

63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n8.\nThe Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C

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

63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n8.\nThe Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C

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

63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n8. The Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C

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

63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n8. The Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C

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

63,46,541/-, made on account of\nunexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH is\nreduced to Rs.9,01,43,236/-, as there was error in considering gold and silver\nrate and mistake in calculation thereof. Accordingly total income revised at\nRs.61,87,59,134/-.\n\nThe Ld CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad in order No. CIT(A)-ll/C

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 Act. 6. Regarding claiming of interest on Self- Occupied Property, the assessee submitted before the learned PCIT that interest on self-occupied house property was claimed for the residential house, that is, Plot No.63 F New Aram Colony, Jamnagar, which is merged by demolishing Plot No.63 A1. Kodiyar Colony and Plot No. 63

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

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

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

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

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

SAMIRBHAI SARMANBHAI MARU,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-1, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 734/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Samir Sarmanbhai Maru The Ito, Ward – 1, Plot No. 142, Raj Laxmi Park, Opp. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Shakti Chambers, Reliance Mall, Nr. Motibaug, Morbi – 363641 Junagadh (Guj) - 362001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcpm6848G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 20.08.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 16.12.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The grounds of appeal mentioned

THE ITO, WARD-2 (1) (4),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S JAGJIT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.137/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) I.T.O, बनाम/ M/S Jagjit Builders & Ward-2(1), Developers, Vs. Rajkot. Ankur Apts., Dr. Floor, Aadarsh Society, B/H Ioc Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj9480A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Maurya, Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 27/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25/02/2016, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 27/02/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13. A.Y. 2012-13 The 1St Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In 2. Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao For Rs. 10,20,62,695/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure Under Section 69C Of The Act

housing under the scheme. There was the survey operation at the business premises of the assessee under section 133A of the Act dated 29/09/2011. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown cost of construction in its balance sheet at Rs. 490/- per square feet whereas the AO was of the view that the construction cost should

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