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)

46,500 which is exactly the same figure as is considered by AO while computing income from capital gains. Similar is the case for block no 345 wherein assessee has executed sale deed at Rs.10,16,73,000 but letter issued by stamp authority forming part of sale deed and part of paper book page no. 108 states that fair

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

10. The assessee has invested Rs. 50,00,000/- initially out of the advance money received of Rs.25,00,000/- each received on 25.03.2013 and 28.03.2013 totalling to Rs.50,00,000/-. In the sale deed, the details of the consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- received by the assessee are mentioned with amount, name of the bank, cheque number and date

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SURAT - 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.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

46,528/-, against this disallowance, the assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, assessment order has merged with the order Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the said assessment order should not be revised by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. The ld Counsel also stated that the direction given by ld PCIT (vide para

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

46,55,102/- and worked out short term capital gain at Rs. 45,86,102/- and added to the total income. 5 Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO 5. The assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons of reopening, recorded that assessee sold immovable property at village-Lajpur, Distt. -Surat for a sale consideration

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

46,21,650/- made by the AO on account of short term capital gain observing that the firm M/s Paramhansh & Co. has offered capital gain in the ROI despite the fact that the assessee has failed to establish that the land in question was included in the opening value of WIP of the firm and reduced the value

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

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

capital gain by taking value of land as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. 60/- per square meter and on the date of sale of land @ Rs. 1760/- per square meter. In the result, ground No. 1 to 3 are partly allowed. 10. Ground No.4 relates to deduction under Section 54B of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee submits that that

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, 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.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

46,02,050/- in respect to land purchased and transfer expenses of Rs.3,11,41,000/-, so even if FMV adopted by the DVO, as Zero, even then it will not affect income offered under the head of Long Term Capital Gain. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by ld PCIT as it is not established that

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

46,76,143/- and levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty by holding that the assessee has not disclosed any particular regarding the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Officer for determining the capital gain. 8. We find that almost on similar set of facts, the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal while considering

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,VAPI vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain from sale of shares to the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, and accordingly this grounds of appeal is decided against the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 12. Ground No.4: States that on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain from sale of shares to the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, and accordingly this grounds of appeal is decided against the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 12. Ground No.4: States that on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain from sale of shares to the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, and accordingly this grounds of appeal is decided against the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 12. Ground No.4: States that on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gain from sale of shares to the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, and accordingly this grounds of appeal is decided against the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 12. Ground No.4: States that on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

capital gains. Since the assessee has not complied with the above mandatory provisions of the section, the assessee is not entitled to the exemption. Thus, assessing officer held that as the assessee has not been able to get the land registered till date therefore the amount of deduction of Rs.4,04,08,003/- claimed u/s 54B of the Income

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PRIVATE LIMITED,DAMAN & DIU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

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.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

10. On merits, Ld. Counsel submitted before us that Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, vide notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017988366(1), dated 14.09.2019 (vide paper book page nos.7), wherein the issue raised by ld PCIT is mentioned and this shows that assessing officer conducted enquiry. 11. In response to notice of assessing officer

MANJULABEN BABUBHAI THUMAR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2997/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.195, 01St Floor, Road No.6F, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat. Udyognagar, Udhna, Surat-394 210. [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

10,000/-. On verification of return of income and computation for the A.Y.2013-14, the AO noticed that assessee has claimed to have incurred cost of improvement at Rs.99,44,432/- and the improvement cost of Rs.1,89,54,488/- and shown net long term capital gain at Rs.1,46,674/- (20010000 – 19863326). It was noticed that the assessee has purchased

DHARMESH KANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 173/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmesh Kanubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 59, Patel Street, At Post Kosad, 2(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम Tal-Choryasi, Dist. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Vs Surat-394 107 [Pan : Ascpp 6161 F] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

10,500/- 2 Dharmesh K. Patel . The Assessing Officer made a reference to Departmental Valuation Officer (in short, ‘DVO’) for estimation of fair market value of asset as on 01.04.1981. The report of DVO was not received till the passing of assessment order. The Assessing Officer on his adopted the rate of land @ 5.00/- per meter and computed capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE vs. SHRI GOPALBHAI T PATEL(HUF), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.498/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward Shri Gopalbhai T Patel (Huf) No.2(2)(5) Surat, 2, Vaibhav Bungalow, Vs Room No. 613, Near Radiant High School, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat Gymkhana Road, Surat- Majura Gate, 395007 Surat-395001 Pan Aachg 7284 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

10(38). The assessee contended that there was no escapement of income in his case. The objection of assessee was disposed of by Assessing Officer vide order dated 05.10.2018. The Assessing Officer after disposing the objection, proceeded re- assessment. The assessing officer vide show cause notice dated 14.11.2018 asked assessee as to why transaction of Rs.7,15,679/- made

CHETANBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.228/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Chetanbhaiprahladbhaigami Principalcommissioner Of Income Tax-1,Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar 39, China Gate-1, Near Spring Vs. Valley, Althan, Surat-395017 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp6880C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

46,960/-) was required to be added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, which the AO has failed to do so. From the above facts, the ld PCIT noted that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order without proper verification/inquiry on the issue as mentioned above, ITA No.228/SRT/2023 AY.18-19 Chetanbhai P Gami therefore