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

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment\nyears, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no\naddition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of\n22\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\ndocumentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing\nofficer that

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

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment\nyears, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no\naddition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of\n22\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos.247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\ndocumentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing\nofficer that

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

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment\nyears, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no\naddition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of\n22\nBhavani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\ndocumentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing\nofficer

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

transfer pricing officer, in the subsequent assessment\nyears, in the assessee`s case, having same facts and circumstances, and no\naddition were made in the hands of the assessee. Besides, with help of\n22\nBhawani Industries India LLP\nITA Nos. 247 to 250/RJT/2024 & Ors. (AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14 & Ors.)\ndocumentary evidences, the assessee has demonstrated, before the assessing\nofficer

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

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

section 45(2) of the\nAct, provides that although such a conversion of capital assets into stock- in-\ntrade of a business, carried on by the assessee, will be a transfer in the previous\nyear, in which the assets is so converted, but actual capital gain will not arise in\nthe previous year in which assets is converted into stock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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