RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification order under section 154 of the Act, the assessee has not been given opportunity of being heard. 23. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023

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

KIRANBEN YOGESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-2 (2)(2), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt.Kiranben Yogeshbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Room No.625, 6Th At & Post: Sosak, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Sura-394540. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0342K (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), Post Orma, Taluka Olpad, Dist: Surat. Surat-394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/ 08/2022

u/s 154 to the AO on this wrong basis that rectification request is in respect of deduction under chapter VIA. She submitted that after receipt of this order from CPC also, the assessee was pursuing the matter before the AO and because of these reasons, delay was caused. She placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the case

MANJULABEN KIRITBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD - 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt.Kiranben Yogeshbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Room No.625, 6Th At & Post: Sosak, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Sura-394540. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0342K (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), Post Orma, Taluka Olpad, Dist: Surat. Surat-394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/ 08/2022

u/s 154 to the AO on this wrong basis that rectification request is in respect of deduction under chapter VIA. She submitted that after receipt of this order from CPC also, the assessee was pursuing the matter before the AO and because of these reasons, delay was caused. She placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the case

EAGLE FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1252/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eagle Fashions Private The Deputy Director Of Income Limited, 201, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru Orleaans Building Current Jurisdiction: V/S. Near City Centre Deputy Cit Sosyo Circle, Magdalla Circle-1(1)(1), Surat Bharthana B.O., Surat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 5107 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Dated 30/09/2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Holding The Same As Time- Barred. Eagle Fashions Private Limited Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2011-12

gain was computed at Rs.23,59,946/- in the intimation prepared u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). This intimation order came into knowledge of assessee on 29.08.2018 when refund was adjusted. As per the assessee, it was a capital mistake in noting down the figures of opening balance of the written down value

SHRI CHETANBHAI RAMJIBHAI AVIAIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.364/Srt/2017(Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Avaiya, 24, Tapovan Society 3(2)(2), Room No.415, 4Th Vs Ved Road, Katargam, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat Surat Pan : Afspa 0072 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 154 done by Income tax officer being the alleged Long Term Capital Gain on sale of agricultural land made by the Appellant. Sh. Chetanbhai R Aviaiya 2.The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the process overlooked the legality of the claim made by the Appellant.” 1. Brief facts

KANTILAL NAGINDAS KAPADIA-HUF L/H. NAINESH PRAVINCHANDRA GANDHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

u/s 154 of the Act was passed on the basis of Report of the DVO and thereby assessed income was determined at Rs.18,28,824/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the learned ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Surat ought to have accepted the valuation report of the Government approved

MUKESH A. PATEL,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mukesh A.Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Ambalal Ni Wadi, Ward-6, Vapi. Vs Station Road, Nr. College, Killa Pardi, Vapi. Pan: Bjhpp 0041 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

rectification u/s 154 of the act. 5) The appellant leaves the right to amend, add or alter the ground at the time of regular hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessment for the A.Y. 2012-13 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was completed on 31.03.2016. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted

SHRI LALJIBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Capital Gain, without appreciating the crucial and relevant evidences furnished to establish the maximum possible fair market value prevailing on the date of transfer of the land in question and hence, not justified. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the value estimated

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Capital Gain, without appreciating the crucial and relevant evidences furnished to establish the maximum possible fair market value prevailing on the date of transfer of the land in question and hence, not justified. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the value estimated

PANNALAL HIRALAL BACHKANIWALA (HUF),SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2)Q, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.101/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pannalal Hiralal Bachkaniwala Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(2), (Huf), Surat. A. K. Road, Hiralal Colony, Himson Mills, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aachp3897A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 19/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

capital gain to the tune of Rs.3,02,93,391/-. 4. On appeal, ld CIT(A) observed that after getting valuation report from the DVO, the assessing officer passed the rectification order under section 154 of the Act, and the addition was reduced to Rs.36,08,390/- by the AO by passing 101/SRT/2020/AY.2014-15 Pannalal H. bachkaniwala rectification u/s

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

154 r.w.s 201&201(1A)&195 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25-03- 10. 2014 rectifying the mistake in respect of the rate of withholding tax calculated at the rate 40% instead of 20.06% of the payment made to the HSBC Ltd Hong Kong and resultant interest on such defaults. The rectified defaults determined of Rs.46

MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

154 r.w.s 201&201(1A)&195 of the IT Act, 1961 on 25-03- 10. 2014 rectifying the mistake in respect of the rate of withholding tax calculated at the rate 40% instead of 20.06% of the payment made to the HSBC Ltd Hong Kong and resultant interest on such defaults. The rectified defaults determined of Rs.46

SHRI AIYUBKHAN Y. PATHAN,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-3, , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.253/Srt/2018(Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Aiyubkhan Y. Pathan Principal Commissioner Of 3, Khan Mohalla, Income-Tax-3, Room Vs Nr. Smc Community Hall, No.425, 4Thfloor,Aayakar Nana Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Bklpp 8314 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

capital gain’ during the course of proceeding and not made proper inquiry or verification finalized the 2 Sh. Aiyubkhan Y Pathan order of dropping the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the I.T. Act is contrary to the fact of the case. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

capital gains’, and ‘Income from other sources’ will not be part of book profit. Therefore, the excess payment of remuneration of Rs.2,24,247/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed

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

u/s 234E of the act which is ultra vires and the same has been confirm by Ld. CIT(A) which is required to be deleted since the charging provision is applicable from 01.06.2015. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the learned DCIT, CPC TDS has erred in giving effect

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

u/s 234E of the act which is ultra vires and the same has been confirm by Ld. CIT(A) which is required to be deleted since the charging provision is applicable from 01.06.2015. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the learned DCIT, CPC TDS has erred in giving effect

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

u/s 234E of the act which is ultra vires and the same has been confirm by Ld. CIT(A) which is required to be deleted since the charging provision is applicable from 01.06.2015. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the learned DCIT, CPC TDS has erred in giving effect

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

u/s 234E of the act which is ultra vires and the same has been confirm by Ld. CIT(A) which is required to be deleted since the charging provision is applicable from 01.06.2015. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the learned DCIT, CPC TDS has erred in giving effect