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:

13. Learned Counsel, Shri Hiren R. Vepari, vehemently contends that sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act deals with the situation where the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its treatment by him as stock-in- trade of a business carried

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)

Capital gain.. Rs.9,31,56,6737- ii) Tax sought to be evaded with surcharge & education cess Rs.2,13,31,470/- (iii) Minimum penalty leviable Rs.2,13,31,470/- (iii) Maximum penalty leviable Rs.9,39,94,410/- 10. But considering the unavoidable absence of director who manages the company affairs I hereby levy a penalty of Rs.2,13

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

gains arising from transfer of one or more original asset, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years

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 gains account on 11.08.2010 was beyond the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1). Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order passed by Assessing Officer. 13

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)

13. She further relied upon the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Rajesh Builders for AY 2004-05 which is mentioned in sub para (r) on page 17 of the CIT(A) order. The Id AR also referred to various judgments on the issues of "capital asset vs. stock in trade" and "capital gain vs business income", specifically

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

13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be treated as a proviso to sub-section (I) of section 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble courts have laid down that by virtue of provisions of sub-section

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

13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be treated as a proviso to sub-section (I) of section 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble courts have laid down that by virtue of provisions of sub-section

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)

Section 2(14) of the Act, assessee is not liable for any tax under the head “income from capital gain”. When above land was sold, assessee received consideration of Rs.2,28,72,600 which is exactly the same as Jantri value prevailing on the date of conversion hence income from business and profession in present case is nil. The assessee

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

13. Similarly, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs R. K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 held as under: “As far as law is concerned, the Assessing Officer has taken a particular view on the basis of evidence produced before him. On the basis of the said material and materials which were collected

M/S. GLOBE TEXTILES,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Globe Textiles, Vs. Ito, 45-46, Hashimi Estate, Ward – 2(1), Udhna Main Road, Surat. Surat-394 210. [Pan No. Aacfg 2121 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) with the following grounds: 1. “On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the ld. ITO in not allowing the set off of the brought forward business and depreciation loss against the profit on sale of depreciable assets

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

gain. However, as per the description of purchase mentioned in the sale deed, the property was acquired for a sum of Rs.3,892/- by the original owner during 1977. Hence, as per clause (ii) of sub section 49(1), since the capital asset has become the property of the assessee— (i) under a gift or will, the cost of acquisition

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in enhancing addition made by Assessing Officer by considering Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,98,97,695/- on account of sale of unlisted equity shares held for more than 12 months as Short-Term Capital Gain

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

13. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that Cochin Tribunal in Kannur district Cooperative Bank Vs ACIT (2012) (136 ITD 102) held that under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, “The banking company” also includes “Cooperative Bank” and further held that as per definition of “Non-schedule Bank” given in the explanation under Section 37(1