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 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

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

KARANBHAI BHARATBHAI GANGDEV,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

price declared by the assessee in the return of income. Karanbhai Bharatbhai Gangdev vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the activity of job work of Marble cutting and Kota Stone. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have sold its factory

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

91,980/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued. Further, notice under section 142(1) of the Act has been issued confronting various incriminating documents impounded during the Income-tax Survey and seeking assessee's response on the same. Issue Involved: 5. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A

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)

91,267 Bharat Bhatiya Karnataka Bank SB00325201 35,000 Total 84,93,54,606 These accounts are in the name of the assessee. The cash deposits pertained to the period covered under this assessment. Since the returned income of the assessee did not match with the cash deposits, therefore AO issued show cause 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

91,000\n16,56,000\n1,65,000\nC2\n203\n1 BHK\n12,50,000\n16,56,000\n4,06,000\nC2\n604\n1 BHK\n12,50,000\n16,56,000\n4,06,000\nC3\n502\n3 BHK\n30,42,000\n33,00,000\n2,58,000\nC3\n801

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

91,000 | 16,56,000 | 1,65,000\n| C2 | 203 | 1 BHK | 12,50,000 | 16,56,000 | 4,

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

91,000\n| 16,56,000\n| 1,65,000\n| C2\n| 203\n| 1 BHK\n| 12,50,

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

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 then the appellant has to provide for such warranty costs in its account for the relevant year, otherwise the matching concept fails. In such a case the second option is also inappropriate. Under the circumstances, the third option is most appropriate because it fulfils accrual concept as well as the matching concept. For determining an appropriate historical trend

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 then the appellant has to provide for such warranty costs in its account for the relevant year, otherwise the matching concept fails. In such a case the second option is also inappropriate. Under the circumstances, the third option is most appropriate because it fulfils accrual concept as well as the matching concept. For determining an appropriate historical trend

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 then the appellant has to provide for such warranty costs in its account for the relevant year, otherwise the matching concept fails. In such a case the second option is also inappropriate. Under the circumstances, the third option is most appropriate because it fulfils accrual concept as well as the matching concept. For determining an appropriate historical trend

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 then the appellant has to provide for such warranty costs in its account for the relevant year, otherwise the matching concept fails. In such a case the second option is also inappropriate. Under the circumstances, the third option is most appropriate because it fulfils accrual concept as well as the matching concept. For determining an appropriate historical trend

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)

transferring the same to washery unit where washing process of the salt is carried out. As stated above the shortage in the first instance comes to about 10% of the manufactured commodity. Such losses occurs due to the reason that when salt is extracted from the salt pan/maffer, there is water-content therein and with the passage of certain period