URVASHI GIRISHBHAI LAL,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not justified and are bad-in-law. 6. The assessee carves to add, amend, alter and delete any of the above ground of appeals.” 3. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that during

THE DCIT, (INTL. TAXN.), RAJKOT vs. M/S. KOREA SOUTH EAST POWER CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

long term capital gain shown in the return of income was in fact "business income" and the same has been wrongly shown as "capital gains" instead of "business income”. The A.O. levied penalty u/s. 271

JAGANI VINODRAI GOPALDAS (HUF),RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) (4),, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 59/Rjt/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Jagani Vinodrai Gopaldas Huf, Income-Tax Officer, 62 – Suraj Appartment, Vs. Ward-1(2)(4), No.1 Shroff Road, Rajkot. Opp. Church, Nfac, Delhi Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaahj9710N

long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,90,574/- as business income of the assessee by adding to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

ANANDKUMAR MANSUKHLAL PATEL,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 190/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Shri Anandkumar Mansukhlal Income Tax Officer, Changela, Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot. C/O. M/S. Anand Agencies, Dhebar Road, Opp. Mehta Petrol Pump, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Acgpp8605G

Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,17,517/- adopting the value determined by DVO at Rs.5,51,000/- as against Rs.1,19,286/- calculated by the appellant. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

long term capital gain on transfer of property referred to above. The assessee’s contention was that he did not get any money from the auction price and that the assessee’s right in property was extinguished on 05-01-2009 as soon as the property was taken over by the bank. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer

MAHENDRAKUMAR BHANJIBHAI CHHANIYARA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 1 (2) (1) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

u/s\n144 of the IT Act, is against the principal of natural justice and therefore the\nheavy addition made of Rs. 66,78,350/- as short term capital gain is required\nto be deleted.\n06. That the appellant has purchased the land under question on 06/08/2010\nand sold on 19/06/2015 which is Long term capital gain, however without\nmaking proper

SHRI RAMA MEPA ODEDARA,PORBANDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4),, PORBANDAR

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) - - are not justified and are bad-in-law. 5. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay

DILIP KANTILAL KUBAVAT,PORBANDAR vs. ITO WD 2(3), PORBANDAR, PORBANDAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2016-17 dated 29.06.2025 wherein it was mentioned "you had preferred appeal which has been disposed of by the 1st appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A)." On perusal of this notice, the assessee immediately approached the consultant. Therefore, in this process, the delay of 80 days has occurred, which may kindly

SMT. INDUMATIBEN G. PARMAR,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on merits

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I T Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.” 3. As per Ground No.1, the assessee seeks to challenge the jurisdiction assumed under s.147 of the Act, the aforesaid ground is dismissed and not pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 2 to 6 concerns addition of Rs.3,69,000/- by applying

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 12,79,751 and denial of exemption u/s.54 of the Act on alleged finding that bill of purchase of Gold Bar dtd. 25/12/1985 is bogus and to treat sale proceed of Gold Bar as income from undisclosed sources. Further, CITA)-NFAC observed that sale bill is for sale of gold bar, whereas as per Wealth

LATE SHRI TULSIBHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA, L/R SHRI HARIBHAI T. PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

long-term capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying

SHRI MAGANLAL LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

long-term capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying

SHRI LAKHABHAI LIMBABHAI PARSANA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

long-term capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying

SMT. HANSABEN MADHUKANT PANDYA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the appeals filed by the separate assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

long-term capital gain in regard to the sale of land at Rs. 1,43,63,312/- as against Rs. 52,07,005/- as worked out by the assessee in the return of income. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated by the Ld. AO. Such penalty proceeding was ultimately finalized by the concerned officer upon levying

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Long after the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, based on new information pertaining to bank a/cs which were not covered in the assessment order while they had cash deposits, reopening/review were carried out. The Review were probably not challenged by assessee. On page 2 of assessment order (A.Y.2009-10) in ITA No.211 of 2018, Ld.assessing officer has made a chart

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

Long after the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, based on new information pertaining to bank a/cs which were not covered in the assessment order while they had cash deposits, reopening/review were carried out. The Review were probably not challenged by assessee. On page 2 of assessment order (A.Y.2009-10) in ITA No.211 of 2018, Ld.assessing officer has made a chart

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated\nfor concealing the particulars of income.\"\n3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all\nthe case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the\nappellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant\ncontended that they are engaged in the business

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Long after the conclusion of the\nassessment proceedings, based on new information pertaining to bank a/cs which were not covered\nin the assessment order while they had cash deposits, reopening/review were carried out. The\nReview were probably not challenged by assessee. On page 2 of assessment order (A.Y.2009-10) in\nITA No.211 of 2018, Ld.assessing officer has made a chart

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

Long after the conclusion of the\nassessment proceedings, based on new information pertaining to bank a/cs which were not covered\nin the assessment order while they had cash deposits, reopening/review were carried out. The\nReview were probably not challenged by assessee. On page 2 of assessment order (A.Y.2009-10) in\nITA No.211 of 2018, Ld.assessing officer has made a chart