BHIKHALAL PRAHLADRAI AGARWAL HUF,GANDHIDHAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.779&780/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) Bhikhalal Prahaladrai Agarwal- Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Huf, Gandhidham Circle C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St It Office, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Near Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Iffco Colony, Gandhidham Opp. Rajkumar College Rajkot Gandhidham - 370201 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabha4638R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025

price of the company Vax Housing Finance Corporation Limited is reproduced as under (downloaded from moneycontrol.com…..” ITA Nos.779&780/RJT/2024/AYs.2011-12&2016-17 Bhikhalal Prahladrai Agarwal-HUF 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the above transactions with documentary evidences. However, the assessee has not submitted any reply before the assessing officer. Therefore

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

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

term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case pertains to the assesses Smt. Mansukhlal Khimji Khimashiya (HUF) for AY 2012-13. The details of the same are as under: Name of the assesses PAN AY Date of Addition made towards Assessment penny

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

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

term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case pertains to the assesses Smt. Mansukhlal Khimji Khimashiya (HUF) for AY 2012-13. The details of the same are as under: Name of the assesses PAN AY Date of Addition made towards Assessment penny

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

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

term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case pertains to the assesses Smt. Mansukhlal Khimji Khimashiya (HUF) for AY 2012-13. The details of the same are as under: Name of the assesses PAN AY Date of Addition made towards Assessment penny

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

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

term capital gains from penny stock Karma Ispat, addition was made in six cases. No addition was made in three cases, out of which one case pertains to the assesses Smt. Mansukhlal Khimji Khimashiya (HUF) for AY 2012-13. The details of the same are as under: Name of the assesses PAN AY Date of Addition made towards Assessment penny

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

short period of time. This decision of the Hon'ble HC is very relevant for the case under consideration. In the succeeding para it has been proved beyond doubt that despite having information about penny stock in this case, the AO failed to conduct enquiry and verification which he should have done. Therefore, the PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction

NARESH KANTILAL THACKER,,GANDHIDHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

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

price at Rs,1,62,03,030/- and has declared gain on sale of agricultural land of Rs.23,96.,970/-. However he has treated the same as exempt covered under the umbrella of agricultural income. It is apparent from the assessment order that the initial purchase was funded by M/s. Agarwalla Teak International Pvt. Ltd. which subsequently brought the said

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)

price ragging activity without having direct nexus or any concrete evidence to disprove the facts brought on record by the assessee. Even the lower authority failed to deal with the set of evidence already on record. Further, no evidence is brought on record by the order passed by the Ld. FAO as well as order passed by National Faceless Appeal

KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.659/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-2013 Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani The Ito, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ K-1/79/4 G.I.D.C., Shanker Ayakar Bhawan, Jamnagar Vs Tekri, Udyognagar, Jamnagar Jamnagar. Gujarart-361005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpd8662P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr-Dr

gain arose in the assessee’s case from the sale of the security u/s Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani 10(38) of the Act of Tuni Textile Limited amounting to Rs. 25,17,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, which is not penny stock. The said addition made is bad in law as all the basic conditions required to avail the benefit

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

short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A No. 176/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Shri Ajaybhai I. Gogia vs. ITO 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the levy

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transferred from the dematerialized account and received consideration through legitimate banking channels. The assessing officer did not have any independent source or evidence to show an agreement between the assessee and any other party to convert unaccounted money by taking the fictitious loss. The decision of assessing officer was unsupported by any material on record, and the finding was purely

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

short ‘Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC'], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 15.12.2023,which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)of the Income Tax Act,1961, vide order dated 24.12.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows

SMT. KRUSHNABA PRAVINSINH JADEJA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.572/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.577/Rjt/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Vs. Krushnaba Pravinsinh Jadeja, C.O. R.K. Shukla & Co., Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 201, 2Nd Floor, Opera Tower, Jawahar Road, Rajkot-360001 (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr : 03/06/2025 : 30/07/2025 Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Common Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Rajkot, Which In Turn Arise, Out Of A Common Assessment Order, Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 17.02.2015.

Short Term Capital Gain" of Rs. 45,03,271/-. 8. The Assessing Officer, after going through the balance-sheet of the assessee, as on 31.03.2012, noticed that a sum of Rs.99,76,000/-, was shown by assessee under the head "Sundry Creditors". On being asked to furnish the details of the amount, it was explained by the assessee that

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. KRUSHNABA P. JADEJA,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

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

Short Term Capital Gain" of Rs. 45,03,271/-. 8. The Assessing Officer, after going through the balance-sheet of the assessee, as on 31.03.2012, noticed that a sum of Rs.99,76,000/-, was shown by assessee under the head "Sundry Creditors". On being asked to furnish the details of the amount, it was explained by the assessee that

RAJESHKUMAR K. NANDANI,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 23/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Shri Rajesh Vs. Ito Kuverjibhai Nandani Ward-1(2)(2), C/O. M/S. Tha Tulshidas Rajkot Narshidas, Para Bazar, Rajkot

short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of long-term capital gain to the amount of Rs. 2,09,950/-. 4. The fact in brief is that assessee has filed return of income declaring income

PRITIBEN JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

short “Ld PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that order passed by the learned PCIT is bad in law, as the assessment order framed by the assessing ITA No.333 /RJT/2023 Pritiben J. Mehta 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

KIRAN HARUBHAI DANGAR,JUNAGADH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, RAJKOT

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

transferred on 20/01/2012 in the name of Kiranbhal Harubhol Dangor & Sadgunaben Kiritbhai Bhutaiya for a sum of Rs. 4,51,000/- only. Therefore, all the details given in Satakhat has been found correct from records of revenue officials. Hence, this is abundantly clear that the details written in Satakhat are correct and hence the whole transaction amount

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

short “Ld PCIT”) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The MansukhbhaiKanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Pr.CIT 3 learned PCIT, on perusal of case records, it was noticed that during the previous year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17, the assessee had received interest on enhanced compensation on acquisition of agricultural land