GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

10. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue, argued that assessee, with other person, made application for the first time for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land on 07.02.2011.The sanctity of the MoU dated 02.07.2011 is questionable, it is after thought to cheat the Revenue. Further, Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- had been purchased only

SHRI HIMMATBHAI MOHANBHAI KHENI,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

37,140/- by treating the transaction of sale of land under Short Term Capital Gain on the basis of purchase deed dtd. 05.12.2006 instead of Stakhat-cum-Kabja Karat dtd. 29.09.2006 on which date possession of land was taken and entire payment was made. The transaction should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain and addition should therefore be deleted

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

37,040 as\nprofit from sale of shares. These receipts were already added as income and\ntaxed in para 10 & 11 of the order. This is evident from the para 10 &11\nexplanations. Where all bank credit entries were considered as income. These\nreceipts were already considered as income at the time of making addition of\ncredit entries. This

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)

capital gain arising from sale of shares. The assessee during the relevant period had sold shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.14,99,917/-. The authorities below held the sale transaction in aforementioned scripts as bogus and thus, made addition under section 68 of the Act. We find that similar disallowance was made in the case

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

37,040 as\nprofit from sale of shares. These receipts were already added as income and\ntaxed in para 10 & 11 of the order. This is evident from the para 10 &11\nexplanations. Where all bank credit entries were considered as income. These\nreceipts were already considered as income at the time of making addition of\ncredit entries. This

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

37,040 as\nprofit from sale of shares. These receipts were already added as income and\ntaxed in para 10 & 11 of the order. This is evident from the para 10 &11\nexplanations. Where all bank credit entries were considered as income. These\nreceipts were already considered as income at the time of making addition of\ncredit entries. This

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

37,040 as\nprofit from sale of shares. These receipts were already added as income and\ntaxed in para 10 & 11 of the order. This is evident from the para 10 &11\nexplanations. Where all bank credit entries were considered as income. These\nreceipts were already considered as income at the time of making addition of\ncredit entries. This

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI KACHCHADIA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

gains”. The Ld.CIT(A) on filing 15 Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO detailed written submission, though called the remand report on various submissions and evidences of the assessee, however, still the action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed. We find that the main contention of assessee right from the beginning is that the impugned land situated in rural area

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

gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section. … …. … (10) the amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous

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

capital gain. The ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT himself admits that there was inquiry and evidences, however, the order cannot be termed erroneous for the want of bills and vouchers, when the assessing officer himself accepted all the evidences. The nature of land sold is clearly mentioned as agriculture land, the permissions was obtained only

JAYANTILAL AMBARAM PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIR.2(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayantilal Ambaram Patel Huf, A.C.I.T., 5, Western Seven Seas, Behind Circle-2(3), Vs. Gangeshwar Temple, Opp. Saint Surat. Mark School, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat- 395009. Pan No. Aafhj 0354 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

37) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer treated such compensation as capital gain and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The division Bench of Surat Tribunal has already allowed the exemption under Section 10

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

37 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information from the office of Pr.DIT (Inv.), Surat regarding the bogus claim of long term capital gain

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

capital gain was wrongly claimed. 6.1 On the facts of case, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises. 7. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed”. 37. We note that findings of the Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai (supra) is squarely applicable to the assessee`s facts under consideration

KIRANKUMAR RAMANLAL NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

37,51,923/-. The assessee paid booking amount of said house of Rs. 5.00 lacs on 14/05/2012, as the property was sold on 03/11/2010 and another property was purchased on 18/11/2015, the 2 Chaitali Suril Udeshi Vs ITO Assessing Officer was of the view that a new residential house was purchased after lapse of five years and the assessee

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

37,67,900/- @ Rs. 25/- per square meter as on 01.04.1981 which is half of the value claimed(shown) by assessee. Notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The difference cost of acquisition between the assessee and the department amount to inaccurate particulars of income. The objection of assessee

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)

Capital Gain added by the AO, confirmed by ld.CIT(A) is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 28. From the above judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai (supra), it is vivid that being co-owner, the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment

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

37-38 of paper book). After considering the above facts and evidences, we have gone through the assessment order, passed by the Assessing Officer and noted ITA No.238/SRT/2023 AY.18-19 Preetiben C Chauhan that assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in the ‘limited scrutiny’ only to examine the items of ‘share capital and other capital’. The scrutiny assessment