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

penalty u/s 271 (1 ){c) of the Act. As seen from the facts of the case, as per the provisions of section 50C

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

Section 50C is not applicable, as it is a gift to the relative, which is exempt from tax, and therefore, the addition made of Rs. 11,93,673/- u/s 50C, is against the provisions of the law. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17 is barred by limitation by 80 days. The assessee

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

KALINDI JAYENDRA RANPARA RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.125/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalindi Jayendra Ranpara. Vs. The Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot. Shrungar Jewellers, Soni Bazar Main Road, Rajkot-360001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpr6315Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s.274 rws 271(1)(c) is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 6). Your assessee reserves the right in addition or alteration in the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s