VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

exemption limit, therefore the assessee has not filed her Return of income u/s. 139 of the Act. The A.O. initiated reassessment

VIJAYABEN RAMBHAI VAJA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

exemption limit, therefore the assessee has not filed her Return of income u/s. 139 of the Act. The A.O. initiated reassessment

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

Exemption Charge" of Income Tax Department and the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act by the Ld. Other ITO is invalid and no reassessment

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

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

Exemption Charge" of Income Tax Department and the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act by the Ld. Other ITO is invalid and no reassessment

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DWARKA, DWARKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

exemption under section10(38) of the Act. Besides, no primary enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law, therefore, reassessment

SAPNA NAINESH JATANIA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

exemption under section10(38) of the Act. Besides, no primary enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is bad in law, therefore, reassessment

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

reassessment stage, there is no question\nof having taken one view of the matter or taking two different views by the assessing officer\nor by the CIT.\n(iii)The Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin in the case of Shri Narayana Dharam Paripalana\nYuvadhana Samiti vs. ITO, Exemption

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order. ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2010-11 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that interest of Rs 84,00,000/- earned from the approved fund on the contributions from Kandla Port Trust as per actuarial valuation is not entitled to exemption

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order. ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2010-11 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that interest of Rs 84,00,000/- earned from the approved fund on the contributions from Kandla Port Trust as per actuarial valuation is not entitled to exemption

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order. ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2010-11 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that interest of Rs 84,00,000/- earned from the approved fund on the contributions from Kandla Port Trust as per actuarial valuation is not entitled to exemption

KANDLA TRUST PORT, SUPERNUATION SCHEAME,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order. ITA Nos.201to204/Rjt/2018 Kandla Port Trust Superannuation Scheme vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2010-11 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that interest of Rs 84,00,000/- earned from the approved fund on the contributions from Kandla Port Trust as per actuarial valuation is not entitled to exemption

KISHORBHAI CHHAGANBHAI ANDIPARA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: The Income Tax Officer, Rajkot. As The Net Taxable Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Below The Basic Exemption Limit, The Assessee Has Not Filed The Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Act.

exemption limit, the assessee has not filed the Return of Income u/s. 139 of the Act. 2.1. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 19,90,500/- in assessee Saving Bank Account with Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. However no Return of Income was filed by the assessee. Therefore the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, in respect of the said scrip. In fact, the assessee earned a short- term capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, in respect of the said scrip. In fact, the assessee earned a short- term capital gain and intra-day gain from the sale of shares of Vax Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, which was taxable and the assessee also paid the due taxes thereon. However, the A.O., without making any inquiries and without even

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

Reassessment Order subjected to revision is not erroneous or nor it is prejudicial to interest of the Revenue and hence, impugned Order dt. 05/01/2024 needs to be quashed, ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT 3. The learned PCIT has erred in law and in fact in disregarding the specific inquiry on the shares GLOBAL SECUR undertaken

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

reassessment order framed by the\nassessing officer under section 147 of the Act, dated 15.03.2022, should be\nquashed.\n15. We note that assessee had intimated to the Revenue Authorities by way of\nletter dated 24.11.2021, about the death of the assessee, the said letter of the\nassessee is placed in the Paper Book of the assessee. We note that

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income. As the scrip name "Karma Ispat Ltd is one of the Penny scrip established by SEBI as well as Investigation Wing Kolkata and Mumbai the amount of Rs 8,90,894/- is required to be added to your total income and should

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

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

exempt income. Assessment u/s.147 of the Act was made and the assessment was finalized accepting returned income. As the scrip name "Karma Ispat Ltd is one of the Penny scrip established by SEBI as well as Investigation Wing Kolkata and Mumbai the amount of Rs 8,90,894/- is required to be added to your total income and should