SHRI KRISHNAKUMAR RAMSINH PARMAR,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, VAPI

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:

D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned two appeals filed by the different assessees, pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, are directed against the separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [in short the “CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)/VLS/259/16-17/302 dated 07.04.2017 and CIT(A)/VLS/260/16-17 dated

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)

D E R PER Dr. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09, is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Surat [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CAS-II/189/2013-14 dated 08.05.2014, which in turn arises

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

D’ souza v/s. ITO - ITA No. 5802/Mum/2013. Further as per the assessee, the limit of Rs.50 lacs is to be considered in each financial year on the basis of the following judgments of the High Courts: i. CIT vs Subhash Vinayak Supnekar [77 taxmann.com 226] (Bombay HC)- ii. CIT vs Coramandel Industries Ltd. [370 ITR 0586] (Madras

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 is not payable. The judgments in Rajesh Kumar Jalan's case (supra) and Fathima Bai's case (supra) were referred to. It has been held as under:- "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act is, in act, a proviso to sub- section (1

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

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)

D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2015- 16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)13- Ahmedabad [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short’ dated 22.02.2019, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

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

d) of Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be applied as assessing officer has taken the view on the basis of the judgment of the supreme court in case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. cited supra and Alom Extrusions Ltd cited supra. 10. As per the clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 263 “"record" shall include and shall

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:

13,53,696/-. The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) of Rs.1,96,08,953/-, out of which the assessee paid LTCG tax of Rs.2,32,967/- and claimed deduction on rest of the amount i.e. Rs.1,93,75,986/-. The assessee further claimed that it has invested Rs.1.76 crore in capital gain account with Bank of Baroda

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

D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned cross appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A),-3/10304/2017-18 dated 11.06.2019 which in turn arise

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.”

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short