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

90,000/-) should not be added to total income under Long Term Capital Gain by invoking section 50C of Act. Dilip Kantilal Kubavat 7.In response, the assessee had submitted its reply before the assessing officer, with documentary evidences stating that the land was transferred to his sister-in- law and therefore, the deed was in nature of gift. However

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

transfer pricing adjustment considering entity wide margins. 1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/TPO has erred in and learned DRP has further erred in rejecting cost plus method ('CPM') adopted by the Appellant and selecting Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the most appropriate method to determine

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

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

price within a short span of time. He has merely taken care to manage paper work to give the colour of genuineness to otherwise sham transactions. In such transactions the theory of probability comes into play. 11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation

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

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

price within a short span of time. He has merely taken care to manage paper work to give the colour of genuineness to otherwise sham transactions. In such transactions the theory of probability comes into play. 11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation

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

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

price within a short span of time. He has merely taken care to manage paper work to give the colour of genuineness to otherwise sham transactions. In such transactions the theory of probability comes into play. 11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation

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

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

price within a short span of time. He has merely taken care to manage paper work to give the colour of genuineness to otherwise sham transactions. In such transactions the theory of probability comes into play. 11. The ld.PCIT noticed that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under: "Explanation

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)

transferred from the IFR Account to the Profit and Loss Account should be shown as “below the line” items after determining the profit for the year. The IFR Account should be shown as a separate item in Schedule 2 “Reserves and Surplus” under the Head “Revenue and other Reserves”. 3.2 Market Value (A) Quoted Securities The 'market value

M/S. JAYSHRI EXPORTS (INDIA) LTD.,JETPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं /Ita No. 56/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 बनाम/ M/S. Jayshri Exports (India) The Deputy Commissioner Of Dhoraji Road, Navagadh, Income-Tax Circle-1, Rajkot Vs Jetpur, Gujarat - 360370 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfj8267B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

90% of Rs. 95,96,101/-) 86,36,490 x 5,25,19,979 / 5,25,19,979 86,36,490/- Total Profit of the business as per Form No. 10CCAC (-) 79,10,629 x 5,25,19,979 / 5,25,19,979 (-)79,10,629/- 7,25,862/- Deduction u/s. 80HHC allowable @30% of Rs. 7,25,862/- 2

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. The order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section 250 has erred in law while passing the appellate order by merely stating that assessee has not challenged that the order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

In the result, assessee's ground No

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

price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

price for the levy of excise\nduty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the\nprice which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of\ncross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to\npresuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination\nand make

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

price for the levy of excise\nduty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the\nprice which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of\ncross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to\npresuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination\nand make