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

short term 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

short term 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

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

Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) of Rs.2.46 crores. However, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under section 194A in the name

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)

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 upheld

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

short term capital gain as considered in the order. 2.2. Even the purchase consideration and improvement thereon was considered as NIL. This is an absurd consideration for raising an exorbitant demand to make a dossier case without appreciating the facts of the case. Calculation of LTCG is attached in annexure of the submission. 2.3. These additions may be deleted/corrected considering

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

short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 18/04/2019 for the Assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty

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

short) on the date of sale of said assets. Till passing of the assessment order, the report of DVO was not received. The Assessing Officer thus made addition of ½ share of difference vis-à-vis the sale consideration and the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority. During Sarlaben Dahyabhai Patel First Appeal, the report of DVO was received

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

short “the AO”). 2. Ground No. I: is not pressed before us, hence, it is treated as dismissed. Dhansukhbhai Paragjibhai Patel v. DCIT-2(3) Surat / I.T.A.No1021/AHD/2016/A.Y.09-10 Page 2 of 16 3. Ground No. II : On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law , the ld. CIT (A) ought have held that transfer of property having been

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

short “the AO”). 2. Ground No. 1 & 4 :are not pressed before us, hence, it is treated as dismissed. Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Patel v. ITO-WD-2(3)(7) Surat / I.T.A.No.970/AHD/2016/A.Y.09-10 Page 2 of 15 3. Ground No.3 : on the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law , the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action

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

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

SHRI ISHWARBHAI ZINABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

SHRI SAMEERKUMAR J. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

SHRI NATVARBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

SHRI ISHWARBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

PREMILABEN M. BHANDARI,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

SHRI BALWANTRAY M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year

VASANTBHAI MOHANBHAI BHANDHARI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

short “the CIT (A)”) dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to various Assessment Years as mentioned in above table of cause title. 2. These appeals were heard together as common issue is involved and common appeal order is passed by the CIT (A). We are taking up I.T.A.No.1566/AHD/20116 in the case of Shri Satish M Patel for assessment year