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

price within a span of 20 months. Therefore prima facie it is a case where the AO has not conducted any genuine inquiries. 8.2. Further, on verification of ITS data, it is observed that during the year under review, the assessee had purchased two immovable properties, one for Rs.6 lakhs and second for Rs.9 lakhs, but purchase deed in respect

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

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

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

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

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

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

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

house property\n2\nITA No. 422/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16\nDushyant Bharatbhai Metha Vs. ITO\nfor a sum of Rs. 73,27,000/-. Out of this, 50% was shown purchase of his\nbrother Shri Paras Mehta, without executing any transfer deed or getting the\nsale officially registered. This transfer was only Rs. 37,01,000/-. The assessee\nthereafter showed huge cost

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.

transfer pricing regime also, these two yardsticks are applied to determine arm's length price. In my view, the A.O. has erroneously ignored these two yardsticks and went on to adopt improper benchmark of municipal valuation. Under both these yardsticks, the appellant has reasonably justified that the building rent paid to specified persons was not only reasonable but also concessional

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

transfer pricing regime also, these two yardsticks are applied to determine arm's length price. In my view, the A.O. has erroneously ignored these two yardsticks and went on to adopt improper benchmark of municipal valuation. Under both these yardsticks, the appellant has reasonably justified that the building rent paid to specified persons was not only reasonable but also concessional

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

transfer pricing regime also, these two yardsticks are applied to determine arm's length price. In my view, the A.O. has erroneously ignored these two yardsticks and went on to adopt improper benchmark of municipal valuation. Under both these yardsticks, the appellant has reasonably justified that the building rent paid to specified persons was not only reasonable but also concessional

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI DEEPAK MOHANLAL PURSWANI, RAJKOT

properties as\nseized in the form of Digital Data and in the form of Hard Data were also\ncompared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses\nreceived from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public\ndomains on various government portals like garvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3)\ngujrera.gujarat.gov.in.Comparison of the financial 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2)\ntransactions entered

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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

transfer amount on 06.07.2011 and issued cheque to assessee on 08.07.2011. Assessee has repaid said amounts of Rs. 15,00,000/- by issuing cheque No: 068708 on 21.10.2011, said cheque deposited in same bank accounts of HDFC. (Page No: 34 to 36) II. Considering the said facts all the three conditions fulfilled. It is a well settled acid test

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

transfer\namount on 06.07.2011 and issued cheque to assessee on 08.07.2011. Assessee has\nrepaid said amounts of Rs. 15,00,000/- by issuing cheque No: 068708 on\n21.10.2011, said cheque deposited in same bank accounts of HDFC. (Page No:\n34 to 36)\nII. Considering the said facts all the three conditions fulfilled. It is a well settled\nacid test

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJOKT

properties as\nseized in the form of Digital Data like and in the form of Hard Data were also\ncompared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses\nreceived from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public\ndomains on various government portals like 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2)\ngarvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial\ntransactions entered

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

properties as\nseized in the form of Digital Data like and in the form of Hard Data were also\ncompared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses\nreceived from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public\ndomains on various government portals like 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2)\ngarvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial\ntransactions entered

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

properties as seized in the form of Digital Data like and in the form of Hard Data were also compared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses received from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public domains on various government portals like 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2) garvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial transactions entered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. R K DREAMLAND, RAJKOT

properties as\nseized in the form of Digital Data like and in the form of Hard Data were also\ncompared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses\nreceived from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public\ndomains on various government portals like 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2)\ngarvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial\ntransactions entered

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

price with\ncustomer inclusive of all other add-on services provided by him) in various impounded\ndocuments/data as well as averments made by sales employee in his statement,\nestimation of unaccounted receipts at Rs.30.22 crores as well as total receipts at Rs.\n118.31 crores from entire project, i.e., 509 flats is strongly objected.\n\n15. It is also submitted that

R K DREAMLAND,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

properties as seized in the form of Digital Data like and in the form of Hard Data were also compared and corroborated with the documentary evidences and responses received from the Sub-registrar office and with the data available in public domains on various government portals like 1) anyror.gujarat.gov.in 2) garvi.gujarat.gov.in and 3) gujrera.gujarat.gov.in. Comparison of the financial transactions entered