SHRI CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,U T OF D & NH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Krishnakumar Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa C-Twin Bunngalow 4, Manorath Ward-Silvassa. Vs. Residency, Gurudev Complex, Silvasa-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2308B (Assessee) (Respondent) Chandrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Vs. Parmarwadi, Sayli Road, Silvassa, Ward-Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli-3962310. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp9167F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren R Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

11 of his order, that capital gain on transfer of the capital assets by a ITA 1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year. 2013-14 K R Parmar & C R Parmar partner to a firm is chargeable to tax in the previous year, in which such transfer has taken place. The amount recorded in the books of accounts of the firm

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, observing as follows: “10. In view of the discussion as above the income of the assessee is computed as under; Income From Business & Profession Income estimated as above Rs. 19,60,875/- Income From Capital Gains Long Term Capital Gains Rs.9,31,56,673/- Rs.9,51,17,548/- 11

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

11. The amendment has been made in S. 54EC by Finance Act (No. 2) 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. As per this, the deduction u/s 54EC is allowable only upto Rs.50,00,000/- as per the second proviso to S. 54EC(1). However, this proviso was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and therefore it is not applicable to A.Y. 2014- 15. The reliance

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 of the Income

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in taxing gain from sale of land as business income instead of Long Term Capital Gain disregarding the evidences and facts on record. The gain of Rs.3,99,10,520/- be treated as Long Term Capital Gain instead of Business Income. 2. The learned

SHRI PANKAJBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

section 139(1) and determining the capital gain at Rs.1,17,03,937/-. 4. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) reiterated the same arguments as was raised by him before the ld.CIT(A) and has also relied upon the written submissions filed before the ld.CIT(A) and the same is reproduced in para 2.5 on the order of the same is reproduced

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

section 139(1) and determining the capital gain at Rs.1,17,03,937/-. 4. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) reiterated the same arguments as was raised by him before the ld.CIT(A) and has also relied upon the written submissions filed before the ld.CIT(A) and the same is reproduced in para 2.5 on the order of the same is reproduced

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)

1)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Chargeable as (Business income vs. Capital gains – Land dealings) – Assessment, year 2009-10 – During relevant year, assessee filed return wherein profit from sale of land was claimed as exempt on ground that it was an agricultural land not falling within meaning of capital asset under section 2(14) – Assessing Officer taking

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

capital receipt had been concluded against the revenue. The satisfaction of the Commissioner, therefore, was based on no material, either legal or factual, which would have given him the jurisdiction to take action under section 263.” 17. In view of the above submission, your honours are requested to quash the revision order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT vs. JAYSINH GULABSINH BODANA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Surat. 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Cross Objection No. 17/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of An Ita No.410/Srt/2019] Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Surat. Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/06/2022 15/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset "being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family for agricultural purposes. However

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

1 is “whether the capital gain, so earned by 7 Assessment Year.2010-11 Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni assessee, is long term capital gain or short term capital gain”. The assessee before the Assessing Officer claimed that possession of the asset was acquired on 29.09.2006 on payment of substantial amount that is Rs.10,82,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.11

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1-4-2015 : Provided further that in case of a share of company (not being a share listed in a recognised stock exchange) or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause. (23D) of section 10, which is transferred during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2014 and ending on the 10th day of July

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period of respective investment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow