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

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "250", "28", "69", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the AO without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to present her case, especially after the seizure of records, and whether the land transactions constituted business income rather than capital gains

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

sections": [ "250", "147", "144", "144B", "69", "133A", "131(1A)", "46A", "250(4)", "28", "13" ], "issues": "Whether the profit on sale of lands should be taxed as capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. DEEPESH VISHNU AGARWAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 144B of\nthe Act lays down the role of NFAC and the units under it for the specific purpose\nof conduct of assessment proceedings in a specific case in a particular\n Assessment Year and the same does not provide for issuance of notice under\nsection 148 there jurisdiction for issue notice u/s 148 of the Act is with

REKHABEN JITENDRAKUMAR JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2013-14 Rekhaben Jitendrakumar Jain, The Pr.Commissioner Of 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Vs Income Tax-1 Adajan. Surat. Pan : Adypj 6066 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca : Shri Ashish Pophara, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg

144B with a direction to the assessing officer as per para no. 8 of the revision order to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration, the issues as may be considered together with the issues discussed in order. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s. 263 may please be quashed or set aside

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 24 of Income Tax Act while assessing the total income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,50,000 while assessing the total income

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 24 of Income Tax Act while assessing the total income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,50,000 while assessing the total income

R AND R INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 532/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) R & R Infraspace Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income- Office No.A1, Giriraj Cinema Tax, Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak बनाम Compound, Navsari-396 445 Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Road, Vs [Pan : Aafcr 1504 C] Valsad-396 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 144 rws 147 & 144B on 29.03.2022. In the assessment order, the Assessing officer treated the sale consideration of Rs. 1.08 Crore as Capital 2 R & R Infraspace Pvt. Ltd. Gain

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

NAYNABEN ARUNBHAI JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT SURAT-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), all dated 23.02.2024, by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Surat [in short Ld. PCIT’] for the assessment years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15, which in turn arose from the separate assessment orders passed by National-e Assessment Centre, Delhi/Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

NAYNABEN ARUNBHAI JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT SURAT-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), all dated 23.02.2024, by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Surat [in short Ld. PCIT’] for the assessment years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15, which in turn arose from the separate assessment orders passed by National-e Assessment Centre, Delhi/Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.451 & 452/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jaya Rinkubhai Bandukwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 1/611,Dhatigara Street, Ward -3(3)(1), Surat-395 001 Vs. Timaliyawad, Manpura, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbfpb 1989 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

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

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

capital gain was paid on it. It was also submitted that the difference between the value of Stamp Duty Authority (SVA) and actual sale consideration is less than 10%. Hence, no addition can be made u/s 50C(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that all details were given to AO, who has duly examined the same

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

capital gain to various beneficiaries; the LTCG exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee in her ITA Nos.343 & 344/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth return of income was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

capital gain to various beneficiaries; the LTCG exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee in her ITA Nos.343 & 344/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth return of income was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT vs. HITESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains from trading penny stocks, which the CIT(A) deleted. The revenue contested these deletions.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16, after April 1, 2021, were time-barred and invalid based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The reassessment proceedings and the assessment framed

VISHNUBHAI CHELABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Pr.C.I.T.,Surat-1, F-19, Divya Jyoti Apartment, Surat. Vs. Samul Dairy Road, Alkapuri, Surat-395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adipp 4007 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 16.03.2022 with a direction to the assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues as may have been already considered together with the issue covered u/s 263 of the I. T. Act. 4. It is therefore prayed that order passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER 331, MAJURA GATE SURAT vs. SHARDABEN GORDHANBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains from the sale of penny stock. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on the belief that the stock price movement was manipulated and not supported by financial fundamentals.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16, on or after April 1, 2021, were time-barred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. ILESH B PONKIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain to the beneficiaries. The assessee said to have sold 50,000 shares of JIIL during this year. Therefore the assessment was reopened and denied the benefit of claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act and made addition of Rs.84,90,075/- under section 69 of the Act. 6. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition