JHONSON ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

iii) Rs.6 lakhs each on 27.05.2005. Johnson Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO ITA No.754/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 6. The ld CIT(A) also held that the seller handed over possession of property to the assessee on 15.07.2006, thus, the transfer of land to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(47) took place only on 15.07.2006. The assessee

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain (LTCG) on sale of shares at Rs.45,01,840/- was also shown. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, as LTCG was on listed equity shares and STT has been paid by assessee. The entire transaction was through banking channel. However, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.49,01,840/- u/s 68 and addition of Rs.98

HOTEL SKYLINE PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

capital expenditure) laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income". The expenditure to be deductible under section 57(iii) must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The argument of the Revenue was that unless the expenditure sought to be deducted resulted

HOTEL SKYLINE PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

capital expenditure) laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income". The expenditure to be deductible under section 57(iii) must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The argument of the Revenue was that unless the expenditure sought to be deducted resulted

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

iii) Divyabenn Prafulchandra Parmar (supra), (iv) Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel (supra) and (v) PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar, R/Tax Appeal No.204 of 2020, dated 17.09.2020. The SLP filed against the decision in cases of Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (supra) and Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar (supra) were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We further find that the order of ITO, Ward

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

iii) Divyabenn Prafulchandra Parmar (supra), (iv) Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel (supra) and (v) PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar, R/Tax Appeal No.204 of 2020, dated 17.09.2020. The SLP filed against the decision in cases of Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (supra) and Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar (supra) were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We further find that the order of ITO, Ward

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR ARJANBHAI VEKARIA, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.339/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Rajeshkumar Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Arjanbhai Vekaria, Vs Surat, Room No.301, 503, Trade Centre, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Ring Road, Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 Pan No: Acopv 1228 P Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDoweell vs. CTO (1986 AIR 649,1985 SCR (3) 91) wherein it was held that “Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

III) Miscellaneous: The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee HUF, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 31/03/2017 declaring loss at Rs. 4,53,97,120/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

10. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted the paper book containing acknowledgement of return of income along with the computation of total income, copy of replies filed by the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A), confirmation of accounts of vendors

RAJ ABHISHEK CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

iii)Assessing Officer’s order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

25 to 29 of the paper book. True English translation of relevant part of construction agreement is also filed on record. The agreement clearly specified about the demolition of old construction and making of new construction consisting ground floor and two additional floors for a 10 Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel Vs Pr.CIT total cost of Rs.1.05 crore. The specification

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

gain and also noticed that claimed exemption of Rs. 3,47,564/- in Schedule El as\nexempt income.\n3. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aradhan\nEstate (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax wherein it was held that report received\nfrom investigation wing has a live link

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 147 r.w.s. 148 have clearly been met; and the reopening is held justified and legal. 25. From the above reasons recorded by the assessing officer, it is vivid that there is merit in the arguments advanced by ld DR for the Revenue. We note that assessing officer had received the information from the DDIT (Investigation) unit-3(2) Kolkata

PRAKASHSINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

iii). Though, the assessee in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 18,20,241/-. The assessee never filed return of income prior to filing return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act as the assessee was not having taxable income. The co- owner of land filed

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)

10. However, assessing officer noted that during the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttacmchandani, Loose paper from page no.1 to 150 were found, seized inventorized in Annexure –A-4. Page no.75 to 79 of Annexure- A-4 is regarding with MoU dated 02.05.2016, regarding property situated at Plot No.141, T.P No. 8, F.P. No.54

PREETIBEN CHHATRASINGH CHAUHAN,SILVASSA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2018-19. Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

25,037 62,325 701 69,00,000 TOTAL 1,22,62,500 29,41,744 14,56,696 F.Y 2012-13 601 3,37,500 12,69,200 2,62,692 DEED. 701 … … EXECUTED TOTAL

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. QUANT CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

25. The assessee relied on the ratio in various case laws that the share application money received from associate concerned cannot be assessed as a cash credit if the assessee has discharged its initial onus and that if complete details of name, address, PAN no. of investors were provided and other details like share DCIT Vs M/s Qcap Securities

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE , VAPI vs. M/S. QCAP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

25. The assessee relied on the ratio in various case laws that the share application money received from associate concerned cannot be assessed as a cash credit if the assessee has discharged its initial onus and that if complete details of name, address, PAN no. of investors were provided and other details like share DCIT Vs M/s Qcap Securities