THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

139 ITD 49 subsequently followed by the Honorable Agra Tribunal in the case of Metro & Metro reported in 39 taxmann.com 26 and Honorable Jurisdictional Abmedabad ITAT in the case of Sterling Abrasives Ltd. 12.2.4 In the case of Sterling Abrasives Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal Nos. 2343 & 2344 (Ahd.) of 2008] the honorable jurisdictional ITAT held that the assessee could

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

capital gains, the status of one of the property is “Bin Kheti Premium Patra Land”. Thus, the status of land is non- agricultural land at the time of purchase and not eligible for deduction under section 54B of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption of Rs.22,54,913/-. 7. Aggrieved

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

9 of sale deed, the that land is shown as reserve for non-agricultural purpose and industrial development as per Section 88(1)(6) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural and Land Act, 1948 vide notification dated 14/11/1991 published by the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. In the sale deed, nowhere it is mentioned that it is agricultural land only word

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

Capital Gain. 9. The ld PCIT observed that in respect of claim of the 54F of the Act, no reply has been submitted by the assessee; therefore the matter has been decided on merit and the material available on record. The assessee has purchased a new house property at Palsana district at “Avadh Shangrila” for a consideration of Rs.44

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)

9. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed her return of income on 04.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.4,22,502/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2015 and the same was duly served upon

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

Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 3,43,200/-, the assessee filed detailed written submission which has been dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) in detail on para 6.1 at page No. 4 to 24 of the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that on the basis

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

139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal.), which was not accepted by the Tribunal because it was not a decision of the jurisdictional High Court. On the other hand, the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, 142 taxmann.com 247 (Guj.) and Nishant Kantilal Patel, R/Tax Appeal No.296 of 2021, would be applicable. In these decisions

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

139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal.), which was not accepted by the Tribunal because it was not a decision of the jurisdictional High Court. On the other hand, the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, 142 taxmann.com 247 (Guj.) and Nishant Kantilal Patel, R/Tax Appeal No.296 of 2021, would be applicable. In these decisions

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

139 of the Act, the due date of filing return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 was 30/09/2011, however, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has failed to deposit such amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme on or before the due date of filing his returned on income, but was deposited late on 02/02/2012. 6. The Assessing Officer also

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

9 04/10/2013 Rs. 2,00,000/- Total advance paid within three years Rs. 28,00,000/- 6. On the basis of aforesaid details, the assessee stated that she invested capital gain for purchase of new residential house within three years from the date of sale as prescribed under Section 54 of the Act. On the objection of Assessing Officer that

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

9 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO sold after obtaining permission under Section 63 of Gujarat Tenancy Act, the assessee explained that obtaining permission is an obligation to convert the land into non-agriculture by the seller which is a condition precedent under the Tenancy Act as business activities on the agriculture land is not permissible. To support various conditions

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

section 139 of the Act was 31.07.2012, which was extended by CBDT up to 31.08.2012, however, the assessee filed Smt.Vijayamma S.Vaidyan Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat/ ITA No.2192/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 return of income on 02.10.2012. As original return of income was filed beyond the due date, accordingly the assessee was not entitled to file revised return

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.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

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the observation of the CIT (A) that B.H. Patel valuation report is additional evidence under Rule 46A is not correct as the same was provided by the assessee to DVO of Department at the time of valuation being carried

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

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the observation of the CIT (A) that B.H. Patel valuation report is additional evidence under Rule 46A is not correct as the same was provided by the assessee to DVO of Department at the time of valuation being carried

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

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the observation of the CIT (A) that B.H. Patel valuation report is additional evidence under Rule 46A is not correct as the same was provided by the assessee to DVO of Department at the time of valuation being carried

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

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the observation of the CIT (A) that B.H. Patel valuation report is additional evidence under Rule 46A is not correct as the same was provided by the assessee to DVO of Department at the time of valuation being carried