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.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Since in all these appeals/cross- objections, issues and facts are intertwined to each other, we proceed to dispose of all by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. Before adverting the specific grievance of the parties in particular

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1 Now, on the first issue, in various cases it has been held that if asset mortgaged has been transferred, it would amount to capital gains in hands of the owner of asset, even if no consideration has been received on such transfer. In the case of CIT vs. Attili

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:

271(1)(c). 6. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order u/s 263 dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Principal CIT, Rajkot-1, a fresh order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was passed on 29.04.2016 assessing the taxable income at Rs. 37,38,98,650 after disallowing Rs. 60,00,000 claimed as PBDD on standard assets and adding

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)

271 (1)(c) of the IT Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income." 3.12.2. Same finding has been given by the A.O. for the other assessment years in all the case of above mentioned appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed detailed submission against the additions made. The appellant contended that they are engaged in the business

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) ..

271(1)(c) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06. First we take up Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No. 995/RJT/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-II, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case in granting relief of Rs.2

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) ..

271(1)(c) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06. First we take up Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No. 995/RJT/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-II, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case in granting relief of Rs.2

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) ..

271(1)(c) of the Act relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06. First we take up Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No. 995/RJT/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-II, Rajkot has erred in law and on facts of the case in granting relief of Rs.2

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Ahmedabad and therefore the time limitation for completion of scrutiny was extended. Assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act vide order dated 24/12/2018 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,62,08,060/- by making addition of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of deemed rent. Since the assessee

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

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 BHARATBHUSHAN KISHANLAL GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ITO- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, mechanically. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, when addition itself not sustainable.” 3. Additional ground raised by the assessee, is as follows: "The Order passed

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

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 be condoned. 4. Learned

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

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

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, 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

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, 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

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

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

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

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

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 IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, 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