CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

Long term capital gain not\nshort term capital gain as considered in the order.\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 attached in annexure of the submission.\n2.3 These

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

Long term capital gain not\nshort term capital gain as considered in the order.\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 attached in annexure of the submission.\n2.3. These

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)

long term securities (shares)- Assessment year 2014-15- For relevant year, assessee filed her return claiming exemption under section 10(38) in respect of 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

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

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

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

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

TDS had been deducted thereupon, but the assessee failed to file the return of income/computation of income. Therefore, the salary income of Rs.82,12,480/- was added to the total income without allowing deductions u/s.24(b) and Chapter VIA therefrom. 5.3 With regard to purchase of equity shares, AO on perusal of P & L statement furnished by the assessee, noticed

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

TDS had been deducted thereupon, but the assessee failed to file the return of income/computation of income. Therefore, the salary income of Rs.82,12,480/- was added to the total income without allowing deductions u/s.24(b) and Chapter VIA therefrom. 5.3 With regard to purchase of equity shares, AO on perusal of P & L statement furnished by the assessee, noticed

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

long term capital gain was increase on the basis of deeming fiction of Section 50C, the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed higher deduction under section 54F of the Act on proportionate basis due to increase in the figure of capital gain. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 54F by holding that assessee has not furnished confirmation of contractor

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

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

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court - Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.262/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, S Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Timaliyawad, Nanpura, . Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaics 8963 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Manish J.Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

TDS. In the result, the ground No. 3 is allowed. 14. Ground No.4 relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that during the financial year relevant to the assessment period under consideration, the assessee has not shown any exempt income, therefore there should not be any disallowance under section

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. Therefore, it was presumed by the assessing officer that the assessee has not deducted tax or deducted tax but not deposited tax into Central Government Account. Hence, the assessing officer observed that the claim of interest expenses of Rs.17,30,151/- was not allowable as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessing officer made

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and loss etc. The statement of Rajendra Jain was recorded by Investigation Wing under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The said Rajendra Jain confirmed that he is managing various bogus entries for providing accommodation of entry without delivery of actual goods. On the basis of such information

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and loss etc. The statement of Rajendra Jain was recorded by Investigation Wing under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The said Rajendra Jain confirmed that he is managing various bogus entries for providing accommodation of entry without delivery of actual goods. On the basis of such information

ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. VIMALCHAND MANIKCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and loss etc. The statement of Rajendra Jain was recorded by Investigation Wing under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The said Rajendra Jain confirmed that he is managing various bogus entries for providing accommodation of entry without delivery of actual goods. On the basis of such information

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

gain, if any, shall be determined in the manner as may be prescribed. As per memorandum and notes to the clause Finance Act, 2021 and subsequent assessment years. 11. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that amendment in the Act that goodwill is no longer considered as intangible asset entitled to depreciation under section