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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI MAHESHBHAI V. SAVANI, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 305/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Maheshbhai V. Savani, Surat. 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Maheshbhai V. Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Surat. Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr Date Of Hearing 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022

section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 31.08.2013 and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee has mainly shown income from salary, interest and capital gain in his return of income. In response to the notices issued, Shri Bharat Rudani, advocate and the duly authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished

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 for purchase of new residential house within three years from the date of sale as prescribed under Section 54 of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that provisions of Section 54F are beneficial provision and to be considered liberally in the aspect of limitation period. To support his submission, the ld AR for the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, बनाम / Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

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

KETAN LALITBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

gains under section 50C of the Act. 3. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee has sold an agricultural land for sale consideration of Rs. 18,66,601 which was valued at Rs. 35,50,950 by stamp duty valuation. In original return of income , the assessee has shown sale consideration

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

144 in the return of income. On enquiry, the assessee has filed working of long-term capital gain at loss of Rs.1,35,590 based on Government Registered Valuer report of Shri P. K. Desai dated 28.05.2013 by taking FMV as @ 600 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981.The FMV of entire plot of land area of 8498 was computed

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

144 in the return of income. On enquiry, the assessee has filed working of long-term capital gain at loss of Rs.1,35,590 based on Government Registered Valuer report of Shri P. K. Desai dated 28.05.2013 by taking FMV as @ 600 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981.The FMV of entire plot of land area of 8498 was computed

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

144 in the return of income. On enquiry, the assessee has filed working of long-term capital gain at loss of Rs.1,35,590 based on Government Registered Valuer report of Shri P. K. Desai dated 28.05.2013 by taking FMV as @ 600 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981.The FMV of entire plot of land area of 8498 was computed

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

144 in the return of income. On enquiry, the assessee has filed working of long-term capital gain at loss of Rs.1,35,590 based on Government Registered Valuer report of Shri P. K. Desai dated 28.05.2013 by taking FMV as @ 600 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981.The FMV of entire plot of land area of 8498 was computed

JAGUBHAI CHHAGNBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainijagubhai Chhaganbhai Patel, I.T.O., New Street, Taluka Choryasi, Ward-2(1)(2), Vs. Village- Hazira, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aclpk 9351 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in this case on 08/03/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition on account of Long Term Capital Gains

SMT. HEMLATABEN NANUBHAI AHIR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SMT. NANDUBEN NANUBHAU AHIR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI VASANTBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI NANUBHAI GOVINDBHAI AHIR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI JANAKBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(10(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI MUKESHBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI NARANBHAI GOVINDBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI KISHOREBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed

SHRI AMBABEN JAMUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष"/ S.N. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent Ay:

capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld only on estimation basis. In our considered view no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levieable on all the assessee(s). 6. In the result, all the appeals filed