CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

capital gain as considered in the order.\nThis may be corrected and long term gain may be considered.\n2.2 Even the purchase consideration and improvement thereon was\nconsidered as NIL. This is an absurd consideration for raising an exorbitant\ndemand to make a dossier case without appreciating the facts of the case.\nCalculation of LTCG is evident in the Annexure

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

capital gain as considered in the order.\nThis may be corrected and long term gain may be considered.\n2.2 Even the purchase consideration and improvement thereon was\nconsidered as NIL. This is an absurd consideration for raising an exorbitant\ndemand to make a dossier case without appreciating the facts of the case.\nCalculation of LTCG is evident in the Annexure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIR. -4, SURAT vs. SHRI HITESHKUMAR LALJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.295/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Room Patel, 52, Narayanmuni Nagar Vs No.508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Society, Nani Ved Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395004 Pan Aanpp 3560 B 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

capital gain in the ROI despite the facts that as per the sale deed the seller of the land is the assessee, tax was deducted in the case of the assessee, the assessee has claimed credit of TDS

ACIT, CC-3, SURAT vs. SHRI NARESH NEMCHAND SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

capital gain arising from sale of shares - Assessing Officer took a view that share transactions were bogus because company 'C' whose shares were allegedly purchased, was a penny stock - He thus rejected assessee's claim - Tribunal upheld order passed by Assessing Officer - High court also took a view that finding arrived by Tribunal was based on material on record

NIRAV BIPINBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Income Tax Officer, 59, Shradha Deep Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat Vs Singanpore, Causewayroad, Ved Road, Surat-395004 Pan No: Amupv 4454 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 16.01.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac”/Ld.Cit(A) Dated 28.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Nirav B Vaghasiya Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Same Is Duly Reflected In Form No 26As Of The Appellant. 1.1 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Capital Gain On Sale Of Property Was Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Partnership Form & No Revenue Loss Incurred To The Department. 1.2 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Credit To The Appellant Though No Income Against Such Tds Credit Was Earned By The Appellant Against Such Tds Credit.

TDS credit of Rs.2,21,000 though the capital gain on sale of property was offered for taxation in the hands

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

capital gain. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 54F by holding that assessee has not furnished confirmation of contractor and approval plan from local authority. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer with similar view that assessee has not furnished approved plan from Municipal Authority. The assessee furnished the copy of agreement with the contractor, copy

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

gain. It is also undisputed fact that the Assessing officer has not issued any show cause notice to the assessee on 6 Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta Vs ITO the issue of long term capital or on penny stock. The case of assessee throughout the proceeding are that she intended to avail benefit of TDS

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

capital gain from share transaction instead of 15% applicable rate u/s. 111A of Income Tax Act. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The grounds of appeal raised

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

capital gain from share transaction instead of 15% applicable rate u/s. 111A of Income Tax Act. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The grounds of appeal raised

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

TDS on various expense debited in Profit and Loss Account and long-term capital gain. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS certificate dated 11.04.2008 bearing certificate No. 7195 wherein it is stated under “NATURE OF PAYMENT “as Contractor Bill may be read as “Compulsory acquisition” (Land/Building). Any inconvenience on account of same may kindly be excused. Therefore, it was contended that the agricultural land in question was acquired under compulsory acquisition hence; no long-term capital gain

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS certificate dated 11.04.2008 bearing certificate No. 7195 wherein it is stated under “NATURE OF PAYMENT “as Contractor Bill may be read as “Compulsory acquisition” (Land/Building). Any inconvenience on account of same may kindly be excused. Therefore, it was contended that the agricultural land in question was acquired under compulsory acquisition hence; no long-term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURA, SURAT vs. PIPODRA TEXTILE PARK LLP, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. Pipodra Textile Park Llp, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp8206B (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.27/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (A/O Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Pipodra Textile Park Llp Vs. Acit, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat– 395 002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp 8206 B (Co-Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

TDS at the applicable rate. The sale consideration in the registered deed was as per the prevailing market rate, which is not in dispute. In the original return of income, the assessee had declared long-term capital gain

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT vs. SHRI ARVINDBHAI RATANBHAI MOKANI, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Ward-3(3)(1), D-260-261, Vittal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Varachha Road, Hira Baug, Surat-395006. Pan No. Ahfpm 2302 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain was not reflected in the return of income, thus the Assessing Officer made addition on account of entire sale proceed of Rs. 1.50 crores without granting deduction of indexed cost of the property. The assessee explained that he alongwith five other persons purchased non-agricultural land at village Gavier, thus having 1/6th share in the said land

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9.Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka high Court in Fatheraj Singhvi vs UOI (supra), wherein it was held that

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9.Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka high Court in Fatheraj Singhvi vs UOI (supra), wherein it was held that

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka high Court in Fatheraj Singhvi vs UOI (supra), wherein it was held

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” 9. Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka high Court in Fatheraj Singhvi vs UOI (supra), wherein it was held