BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ADDI. CIT, RANGE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment years, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no addition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of 22 documentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing officer that sale by Rajkot unit, is on arm's length price, hence, no addition should

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment years, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no addition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of 22 Bhavani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) documentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment years, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no addition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of 22 Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) documentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF IINCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment years, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no addition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of 22 Bhawani Industries India LLP ITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.) documentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing officer that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT vs. LAJVANTIBEN RAJABHAI HINDUJA, RAJKOT

price. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee had filed reply dated 22.11.2022, wherein she had claimed that the assessee had neither received cash of Rs.25,00,000/-, on 07.09.2020 nor received cash of Rs.75,00,000/-, on 30.09.2020 from the said party. The assessee had further stated that both the land bearing survey no. 103/2

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

transfer of property referred to above. The assessee’s contention was that he did not get any money from the auction price and that the assessee’s right in property was extinguished on 05-01-2009 as soon as the property was taken over by the bank. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer in quantum proceeding and action

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)

section 292(C) of the Act, it is considered that these bank accounts pertain to the appellant & the transactions shown in these accounts are true & correct. On considering these transactions as turnover of the appellant, income on these transactions has to be estimated. Apart from these deposits & withdrawals in these accounts, there is no other evidence to decide the income

THE ACIT.,GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S. WOCO TECH POLYMERE KANDLA LTD.,, KANDLA, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also allowed

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13. I.T.A No. 162/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 . Page No 2 ACIT Vs. M/s. Woco Tech Polymere Kandla Ltd. 2. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue reads as under

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.422/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2015-16) Dushyant Bharatbhai Mehta (Physical Hearing) C/O Bhabha Fashions 34/35 Bhabha Bazzar, Ghee Kanta Road, Vs. The Ito, Ward -2(1)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Rajkot Rajkot 360001 (Gujarat) स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahgpm4763P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 27-05-2024 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The

price minus market value as on sale of conversion shall be treated as business income and can be taxed under the head “ Profits and gain of business and profession." The assessee, for the year under consideration, has offered income against the said property to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000/-, under the head “profits and gain of business

MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.318/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Sakariya The Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम At Khajuri Gundala Income Tax-1, Rajkot. Post Station: Vavdi Vs. Amarnagar, Khajuri Gundala. Pan : Aslps 7027 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

transfer of the capital asset. The court consideredthe 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 hardshipcaused to the owner of the land

SHRI BHADRESH RAMNIKLAL NAGDA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

price and Valuation made by Department VO without complying various legal formalities to be observed as stated under section 56 2vii like purchase is made by appellant by payment of extra money or location and joint owner ship and agricultural land etc. hence addition is prejudicial and illegal and contrary to the fact of the case hence Rs 387500/- retained

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

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price at which it was acquired in the year 2006 in the year under consideration. As per the assessee the impugned transaction cannot be regarded as transfer so as to attract the capital gain and therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the head “Capital Gain”. 34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons

THE DEPUTY COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, RAJKOT vs. M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price at which it was acquired in the year 2006 in the year under consideration. As per the assessee the impugned transaction cannot be regarded as transfer so as to attract the capital gain and therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the head “Capital Gain”. 34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons

M/S RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price at which it was acquired in the year 2006 in the year under consideration. As per the assessee the impugned transaction cannot be regarded as transfer so as to attract the capital gain and therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the head “Capital Gain”. 34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price at which it was acquired in the year 2006 in the year under consideration. As per the assessee the impugned transaction cannot be regarded as transfer so as to attract the capital gain and therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax under the head “Capital Gain”. 34. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reasons

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)

price in cash or otherwise. Therefore, after having regard to the given facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the action of the ld CIT(A) does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the ground of appeals of Revenue are dismissed. 29. In the result, following grounds raised by the revenue, are dismissed: (i) Ground