KANTABEN VAJUBHAI PAGHADAL,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 of the Act of 1894 and observed that section 23(1-A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIA,JETPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section 34 ofthe Act of 1894 and observed that section 23(1-A) was introduced in the 1894 Act to mitigate the hard ship caused to the owner

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

23. Therefore the event for claiming deduction as per the said section is earning of profits from specified businesses and not creation of Reserves, which is only a condition put in place for claiming deduction of profits so as to ensure utilization of profits for investment in plant and machinery of the said business. Non utilization for the specified purpose

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

23 of 33 Rajkot Dist. Co-op. Bank Ltd. this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer for the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

c) evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute

ISS SHIPPING INDIA PVT. LTD., (AS AGENT FOR MAERSK TANKERS SINGAPORE PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE),NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, RAJKOT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

c) evidence furnished by the assessee; (d) report, if any, of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer or any other authority; (e) records relating to the draft order; (f) evidence collected by, or caused to be collected by, it; and (g) result of any enquiry made by, or caused to be made by, it. (7) The Dispute

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

1% of gross value. This was the result of time gap between the recording of entries and explanation sought. Some of the employees’ who have noted these entries must have left the job also. Thus, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated controversy and rightly deleted the additions. We do not find any merit in the grounds

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

C)/2 1% X average value of investment 1 % X Rs. 46,00,00,000 Rs.46,00,000 (Income from which is exempt) Total Disallowance Rs.46,00,000/- However, the assessing officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has not properly examined the above issues. 8. The ld.PCIT had noticed the fourth issue from the assessment

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

c ) Ground No.1 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2012–13 at Rs.5,96,99,728/-. (d) Ground No.2 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 366/RJT/ 2017, for assessment year 2013–14, at Rs.9,63,60,980/-. 7. Brief facts qua the summarized and concise ground No.1 of revenue, are as follows: During

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

c ) Ground No.1 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2012–13 at Rs.5,96,99,728/-. (d) Ground No.2 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 366/RJT/ 2017, for assessment year 2013–14, at Rs.9,63,60,980/-. 7. Brief facts qua the summarized and concise ground No.1 of revenue, are as follows: During

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

c ) Ground No.1 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2012–13 at Rs.5,96,99,728/-. (d) Ground No.2 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 366/RJT/ 2017, for assessment year 2013–14, at Rs.9,63,60,980/-. 7. Brief facts qua the summarized and concise ground No.1 of revenue, are as follows: During

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

c ) Ground No.1 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2012–13 at Rs.5,96,99,728/-. (d) Ground No.2 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 366/RJT/ 2017, for assessment year 2013–14, at Rs.9,63,60,980/-. 7. Brief facts qua the summarized and concise ground No.1 of revenue, are as follows: During

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

c ) Ground No.1 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 236/RJT/ 2016, for assessment year 2012–13 at Rs.5,96,99,728/-. (d) Ground No.2 in Revenue`s appeal in ITA No. 366/RJT/ 2017, for assessment year 2013–14, at Rs.9,63,60,980/-. 7. Brief facts qua the summarized and concise ground No.1 of revenue, are as follows: During

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

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)

23 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Sr. Item of Implied from Shroff/Bill Angadiya Money No. Comparison submissions of Discounter Remitter assessee, and similar persons business common services/ Shroff Angadiya exchange parlance, but services/ styled as money remitter Angadiya/ shroff v. The misuse has been discovered by GST/IT department in a large number of cases, where

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

c) The assessee has not shown any house-hold withdrawals.\n9. The ld. PCIT was of the view that the assessing officer accepted the\naforementioned transactions without making inquiries or verification\nwhich should have been made. Accordingly, the impugned assessment\norder is left erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as income\nwas under assessed to that extent.In view

SMT. CHANDRAKALA M. JUNEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer from GMCB. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). In view of the above the AO treated the entire sum of deposit in the bank for Rs. 2,66,13,710/- as income from undisclosed sources and added

SMT. JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDERKUMAR,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer from GMCB. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). In view of the above the AO treated the entire sum of deposit in the bank for Rs. 2,66,13,710/- as income from undisclosed sources and added

THE ITO, WARD-1,, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI JUNEJA CHANDRAKALA MOHINDER,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.995/Rjt/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Ito, Smt Juneja Chandrakala Ward-1, Mohinder, Vs. Gandhidham, 31, Tanker Owner Association Building, N.H. Way, Gandhidham-Kutch. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.930/Rjt/2010 & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.453/Rjt/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Smt. Chandrakala M. Juneja, Ito, 31, Taker, Owners Asso. Ward-1, Vs. Bldg. Gandhidham. Gandhidham. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acppj1084J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

transfer from GMCB. However, assessee failed to establish direct nexus between the deposits made in the bank account and her alleged claim regarding withdrawal from GMCB (entry to entry). In view of the above the AO treated the entire sum of deposit in the bank for Rs. 2,66,13,710/- as income from undisclosed sources and added