ITAT Surat Judgments — April 2022

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI CHHANABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), SURAT

ITA 63/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

PRAVINBHAI SUKHABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 59/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

SUSHILABEN PRAVINBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 60/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

SHRI SHARADKUMAR KANTILAL KHALASI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 221/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

SHRI KANTIBHAI CHHAGANBHAI KHALASI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 222/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

SMT.NANDIBEN SUKHABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 58/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

HITESHBHAI CHHANABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 62/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Heard27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined, and the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Substantial additions were deleted or upheld only on estimation, making penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not leviable.

SHRI NARANBHAI GOVINDBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 41/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

HITESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 2381/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI VASANTBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 440/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI JANAKBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(10(2), SURAT

ITA 395/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI NANUBHAI GOVINDBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 46/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI DAYALBHAI GOVINDBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 44/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SMT. NANDUBEN NANUBHAU AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 43/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SMT. AMBABEN NAROTTAMBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), NEW WARD- ITO, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT

ITA 1665/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI AMBABEN JAMUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 2681/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI KISHOREBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 45/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI MUKESHBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 392/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI VASANTBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 439/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

CHAMPABEN AMRUTLAL PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), NEW JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 1329/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SMT. SHARMILABEN MUKESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 394/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SMT. HEMLATABEN NANUBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 42/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not a 'capital asset' and thus gains on its transfer were not taxable. Furthermore, exemption under section 10(37) was allowed. For penalties under section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal found improper service of notices, leading to deletion.

SHRI DAYALBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 71/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI MOHANBHAI DEVJIBHAI PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 73/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

DAHYABHAI BHAGABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 3122/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SMT. SHARDABEN BHIKHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 152/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI NARENDRABHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL L/H. OF LATE ISHVARBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 69/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI KANTIBHAI C. KHALASI ( AHIR),SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), SURAT

ITA 255/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI JAMUBHAI MANCHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 74/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI JAMUBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 70/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

BHARTIBEN C. PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), SURAT

ITA 1595/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI RAMUBHAI NATUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 72/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI SHARADKUMAR K. KHALASI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), SURAT

ITA 1554/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

KOKILABEN J. KHALASI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), SURAT

ITA 3181/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI NILESHBHAI P. KHALASI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), SURAT

ITA 1594/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

JAGUBHAI KHALASI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

ITA 240/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

BHAVNABEN HITESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 3121/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI KISHANBHAI R. KHALASI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 130/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI JAMUBHAI KALYANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), SURAT

ITA 1604/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI BHIKHUBHAI DAYHABHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 151/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI NAVINBHAI ICHCHHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), SURAT

ITA 2561/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

SHRI MANOJBHAI GIJUBHAI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), SURAT

ITA 374/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

SHRI DALPATBHAI DAYHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 2968/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

SHRI PREMABHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), SURAT

ITA 2181/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

NITABEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 3124/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

KAMUBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 3123/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI ICHCHHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), SURAT

ITA 2562/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

ASHOK DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 3126/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SMT. GOMIBEN PREMABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

ITA 147/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI ICHCHHUBHAI PATEL L/H OF LATE KANKUBEN I. PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), SURAT

ITA 2563/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.