SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

139(9) or to suffer penalty under section 271B. In case where the Assessing Officer overrules the assessee’s objection and holds that the assessee is/was liable to get his accounts audited in terms of section 44AB the question is always be germane to consider whether such objection raised by assessee as to his obligation under section 44AB was frivolous

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 and not u/s 68 of the Act and therefore the provisions of section 115BBE is not applicable to the assessee. Apart from this, the Ld. Counsel relied on several judgments including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nishant Kantilal Patel, Tax appeal No.296/2021, dated 07.01.2022 and stated that the addition made

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

139 of the Act. However, in the instant case, amount of capital gain, neither used to purchase a new assets nor deposited in the Capital Gain account on or before the due date (i.e. 07.09.2015 for A.Y. 2015-16) for furnishing return of income under section

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

capital gain under taxation under Section 68 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the additions under Section 68 of the Act. No grounds of appeal against reopening under section 147 or validity on notice under section

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

capital gains exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Hence, the addition made by the AO on account of sale of share of Rs.9,44,74,391 u/s 68 of the Act was deleted. He also deleted the addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs.64,78,080/- in respect of unexplained commission paid on account of above LTCG

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

capital gains exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Hence, the addition made by the AO on account of sale of share of Rs.9,44,74,391 u/s 68 of the Act was deleted. He also deleted the addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs.64,78,080/- in respect of unexplained commission paid on account of above LTCG

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date of filing of return of income for that year. As per explanation (2) to sub- section (1) of section 139

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

capital gain scheme. Section 54(2) of the Act specifically provides that the amount which have not been invested either in purchase or for construction have to be deposited in specific account before due date of filing return of income under Section 139

SMT. VIJAYAMMA SYAMPRAKASH VAIDYAN,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3),, SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2192/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt.Vijayamma Syamprakash Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaidyan, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. 832, Q-Tower, Ashirwad Palace, Near Jamna Nagar Bus Stand, Jivkornagar, Bhatar, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Akmps 7570 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain of Rs. 1.25 Crore. The AO completed the assessment on the basis of original return of income and that no reason was given by him for not considering the revised return of income. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 3706/Mum/2011 dated 13th October 2012, wherein it was held that where

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

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

139(1) of the Act. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and partly confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case

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)

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18, on 29.12.2017, declaring total income of Rs.24,77,900/-. This return of income was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In assessee`s case no assessment was completed earlier. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the Kuberji

SMT. JYOTIBEN VINODBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain was not allowed then a claim of deduction under section 54B was made before the AO. However, the AO had not entertained the same. 12. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). However, before CIT (A) this claim of deduction was left out therefore, it was raised as additional ground before

SHRI SATYADEV NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain was not allowed then a claim of deduction under section 54B was made before the AO. However, the AO had not entertained the same. 12. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). However, before CIT (A) this claim of deduction was left out therefore, it was raised as additional ground before

SMT.URMILABEN NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain was not allowed then a claim of deduction under section 54B was made before the AO. However, the AO had not entertained the same. 12. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). However, before CIT (A) this claim of deduction was left out therefore, it was raised as additional ground before

SHRI TEJASH VINODBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain was not allowed then a claim of deduction under section 54B was made before the AO. However, the AO had not entertained the same. 12. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). However, before CIT (A) this claim of deduction was left out therefore, it was raised as additional ground before

JAYA RINKUBHAI BANDUKWALA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(1) SURAT, SURAT

capital gains and allowed indexed cost of acquisition. A\nperusal of that assessment order prima facie establishes that the Revenue\nitself has acknowledged the fractional ownership pattern. When co-owners of\nthe same property are assessed on the same transaction, consistency demands\nthat their cases be examined in a uniform manner unless differentiated by\nfacts. The apparent inconsistency

SHRI MAHESHBHAI M.PANDYA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI

In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.388/Srt/2018 (Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Maheshbhai M Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 9, Dipkiran Co-Op. Hsc, Ward-6, Vapi, Vs Society, Nr.N.H.-8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Pan No. Afupp 6452 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Capital Gains (LTCG for short) while filing original return of income. The assessee has referred the provision of Section 148 and submitted that on going through the proviso of Section 148, it became clear that before making assessment under section 147, the Assessing Officer has issued notice in requiring the assessee to file his return of income and any such