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)

148 (SC) were attracted to facts and transaction being colourable device to avoid tax arising on capital gains, Assessing Officer was right in brining gains to capital gains tax -Held, yes. Reliance is also placed on ratio of decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Carlton Hotel (P.) Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 257 wherein

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.”

148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2014. The AO after serving statutory notice under section 142(1) and 143(2) proceeded for reassessment. The AO also issued show cause notice on 17.02.2015 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why stamp value of Rs.4.6 Crores be not treated as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital

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

148 proceeded for assessment. In the assessment order, the Assessing Office made addition of Rs.2.68 crores by reducing the cost of acquisition and brought the remaining surplus to taxation under the head “capital gains” as short term capital gains. The Assessing Officer while treating the gain as short term capital gains recorded that assessee has purchased the said land

SHRI HIMMATBHAI MOHANBHAI KHENI,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income of Rs. 31,81,012/- on 30.03.2011. The assessee is having the income from share in profit from firms, salary income and long term capital gain. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, 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 gains on penny stock scrip namely JRI Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. In support of the grounds of appeal, Ld. Sr. D.R. requested to sustain the addition made by the assessing officer and allow the Revenue appeal. I.T.A No. 1245//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 ITO Vs. Kishor Bhanubhai Asodaria 6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel Shri Manish J Shah

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

148 was on 27.03.2018. However,\nassessee did not file her return in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the\nAO has issued five notices and show cause notice which are mentioned at\npage-2 of the assessment order. There was no compliance to any of the\nnotices issued by the AO. Hence, AO has completed assessment proceedings\nex parte

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

2(14)(iii). Though, the assessee in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 18,20,241/-. The assessee never filed return of income prior to filing return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act as the assessee was not having taxable income. The co- owner

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 of Rs. 3,43,200/- by the assessee. The Assessing Officer after obtaining necessary approval, 3 Rajeshbhai D Dungarani Vs ITO issued notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 29/03/2018. In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 11/07/2018 declaring total

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

section 148 has offered capital gain and paid tax of Rs. 4,03,262/-. Thus, the facts of the present case are at variance. In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 16/08/2023. (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI

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

148, the assessee filed return of income on 24/10/2018 declaring income of Rs. 71,440/-. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) proceeded for assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee sold flat bearing No. A-606, 6th Floor, Evening Glory

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)

148 of the I.T. Act 1961. Jerambhai B Gohil 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the action of assessing office in disallowing exemption of Rs.22,54,910/- claimed by the assessee

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

148 of the Act on 29.03.2018. In response, assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,43,91,600/-. Thereafter, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.10.2018. As per the investigation report, M/s Kyra Landscapes Ltd (earlier named as M/s TCL Technologies Ltd) was indulged in providing bogus long-term capital gain to different persons

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

148 of the Act on 29.03.2018. In response, assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,43,91,600/-. Thereafter, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.10.2018. As per the investigation report, M/s Kyra Landscapes Ltd (earlier named as M/s TCL Technologies Ltd) was indulged in providing bogus long-term capital gain to different persons

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 69C on account of commission paid @ 2% or 3% of bogus long term capital gain. In the assessee`s case AO added Rs.10426 (3% of Rs.3,47,564). Since, we have deleted the alleged addition of Rs.3,47,564/-, hence addition made by AO does not have leg to stand, therefore it is hereby deleted. 41. In the result

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 shows that for taking action under thesaid provision what is required is that (i) the ITO has received ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. information, and (ii) in consequence of such information he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question was whether

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 shows that for taking action under thesaid provision what is required is that (i) the ITO has received ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. information, and (ii) in consequence of such information he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question was whether

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 shows that for taking action under thesaid provision what is required is that (i) the ITO has received ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. information, and (ii) in consequence of such information he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question was whether

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on\nthe subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax Appeal\nADDL/JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata has erred in upholding the addition of\nRs.6,81,214/- on account of long term capital gain treating such exempt\nLTCG as unexplained