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

Section 10(38) of the Act, which are reproduced below: ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and therefore, assessment should be quashed on this score only. 9. On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

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

10(38), in\nabsence of any material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sale of\nsaid shares was bogus, Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of\nsale proceeds of shares under section 68\"\n24.\nOur view is further fortified by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of\nCalcutta in the case of Kaushalya Dealers

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

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

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

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

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

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

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

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

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

CLASSIC NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

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

reassessment order itself, therefore we thought it appropriate to take up and decide this additional ground first. 24. For assessment year 2015–16, the assessee had already raised the above legal ground in the Memo of Appeal filed in Form 36 before the Bench, which reads as follows: “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)–11 Ahmedabad, erred in upholding