DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital nature….” 5.5 In view of the above factual positions and the authoritative precedents cited supra, we are of the considered view that the AO was not correct in adding the notional exchange gain on foreign currency loan on the balance sheet date as income of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital nature….” 5.5 In view of the above factual positions and the authoritative precedents cited supra, we are of the considered view that the AO was not correct in adding the notional exchange gain on foreign currency loan on the balance sheet date as income of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains out of sale of scrip of Kushal Ltd. nor\nthat the aforementioned stock/scrip was not a penny stock. Hence, the AO\ntreated the amount transacted of Rs.84,32,905/- as unexplained investment\nu/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Further, the AO added an amount of Rs.2,52,987/-\n(3% of Rs.84,32,905/-) on account of commission paid

NAVINBHAI RATILAL IDRIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

148A(d) was passed and fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30-06-2022. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued. Since the assessee failed to response to the notices, A.O. passed exparte assessment order making entire addition of Rs.2,96,93,877/- as the capital gain in the hands of the assessee and demanded

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

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

DIPAK CHHAGANLAL NAIK L/H AMITABEN DIPAK NAIK,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1118/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dipak Chhaganlal Naik Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik Surat, Room No. 627, Aaykar Vs. 44, China Gate-2, B/Hgayatri Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Mandir, Althan S.O, Althan, 001 Surat- 395 017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhn 5872 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

148A of the Act which came into force w.e.f 01/04/2021. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld addition made by the assessment unit u/s 50C for Rs.82,96,500/- being 1/3rd difference between fair market value and registered document value of agricultural land sold by the appellant wide registered sale deed number

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, HAZIRA RAOD, SURAT vs. SHARMISHTHABEN SHIVLAL PONKIA, UMRA, BHARTHANA B.O, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BHANUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. SHIVLAL SHAMJIBHAI PONKIA, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred

KETAN NATVARLAL SHAH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2013-14

capital gain. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back

PRITI BHANSALI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is deleted

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblepriti Bhansali, Income Tax Officer, Vs. D 1, Rajashree Nagar, Ward-1, Umalla, Bharuch. Bharuch-39310. [Pan : Agspb2559 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

capital gains in his return of income. The name of the assessee was included in the property documents only for nominee purposes, as per the housing society rules. An ex-parte order under section 148A

MAHEBOOB ABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Capital Gain.” 3. The details relating to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are summarized as under:- AY : 2014-15 Sr. Particulars Date 1. Date of issue of notice u/s 148 22.06.2021 (Old Provisions) 2. Date of providing the underlying information 23.05.2022 u/s 148A

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain.\n8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer\nmay please be deleted or reduced.\n9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or\nin the course of hearing of the appeal.”\n7.\nThe ground of appeal in ITA No.936/SRT/2024 are as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. CHANDUBHAI JADAVBHAI KORAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Ito, Vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Ward – 1(3)(1), 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Surat Road, Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.36/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Arising Out Of Ita No.720/Srt/2024) Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Vs. Ito, 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Road, Ward – 1(3)(1), Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

capital gains un account of ITA No.720/SRT/2024 & CO No.36/SRT/2024/AY 2015-16 Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances

JAYANTIBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section (u/s.) 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ~ 1 ~ Jayantibhai Chimanbhai patel, Surat 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows: 1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO's reopening of assessment U/s. 148A ignoring the law that proceedings U/s. 148A are not in accordance with

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed