BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 54B was disallowed. The Assessing Officer further recorded that the DVO has not given any report and the matter was getting time bared so the Assessing Officer treated the value of entire sale consideration as long term capital gain in the following manner: “(i) R.S. No. 200, 202, 176, Block No. 158

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act for being treated as agricultural land and exempted from ITA No.126/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Bhadrabala D Joshi capital asset. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) held that lands sold by the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, the addition of Rs.1

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

gains of business or, profession", which incorporates the entire procedure for computing the business income under s. 28 to 44 of the Act. De hor s. 80HHC of the Act. the consistent approach is that where the statutory provision talks of "income derived from" the business activity in question, the nexus theory should be applied in order to determine whether

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

gains of business or, profession", which incorporates the entire procedure for computing the business income under s. 28 to 44 of the Act. De hor s. 80HHC of the Act. the consistent approach is that where the statutory provision talks of "income derived from" the business activity in question, the nexus theory should be applied in order to determine whether

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

capital receipt had been concluded against the revenue. The satisfaction of the Commissioner, therefore, was based on no material, either legal or factual, which would have given him the jurisdiction to take action under section 263.” 17. In view of the above submission, your honours are requested to quash the revision order passed

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

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

capital receipt which is not taxable in the eye of law. 13. In respect of ground No. 2 and 3, the ld. Counsel then argued that Assessing Officer also erred in not allowing the set off, of carry forward of depreciation to the tune of Rs.1,20,54,688/-. Apart from this, Assessing Officer also denied

MANOJJ GANESHLAL BHATIA, SURAT vs. ACIT, CIR 1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.494/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Manojj Ganeshlal Bhatia Income-Tax, Circle-1[3], Room B-703, Opera House Building, Vs. 3Rd No.301, Floor, Anavil Nr. Agarsen Bhavan, City Light Business Centre, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395007 Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpb 9748 E (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul K.Patel, Advocate राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [Ld. Cit(A) For Short] Dated 28.08.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 29.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,97,77,965/- Made On Account Of Profit From Future & Options Ignoring That Assessee Has Failed To Tender Evidence & Explanation In This Regard? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,60,54,528/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Increase In Capital Holding That The Capital Accumulation Is Fully Explained On The Basis Of Capital In The Itr Of A.Y 2011-12 & Accumulated Income In The Roi For A.Y 2012-13 To A.Y 2014-15 Ignoring That Assessee Has Shown Nil Capital Balance In Itr Filed For A.Y 2014-15?

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] dated 29.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,97,77,965/- made on account

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

158-159 (Guj) (iv) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) (vii)CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) 7. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer issued

HOTEL SKYLINE PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

158/- included the interest expenses of Rs. 14,74,654/- and other expenses of Rs.9,02,504/- for assessment year 2012-13. The expenses of Rs.24,72,208/- included the interest expenses of Rs.13,96,831/- and other expenses of Rs.10,75,377/- for assessment year 2013-14. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the fund borrowed

HOTEL SKYLINE PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

158/- included the interest expenses of Rs. 14,74,654/- and other expenses of Rs.9,02,504/- for assessment year 2012-13. The expenses of Rs.24,72,208/- included the interest expenses of Rs.13,96,831/- and other expenses of Rs.10,75,377/- for assessment year 2013-14. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the fund borrowed

HOTEL SKYLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are ( ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.690 & 691/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Bharuch Skyline Building, Old N.H. Vs. Nop.8, Nr. Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (Assessee) (Respondent)

158/- included the interest expenses of Rs. 14,74,654/- and other expenses of Rs.9,02,504/- for assessment year 2012-13. The expenses of Rs.24,72,208/- included the interest expenses of Rs.13,96,831/- and other expenses of Rs.10,75,377/- for assessment year 2013-14. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the fund borrowed

HOTEL SKYLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are ( ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.690 & 691/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Bharuch Skyline Building, Old N.H. Vs. Nop.8, Nr. Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (Assessee) (Respondent)

158/- included the interest expenses of Rs. 14,74,654/- and other expenses of Rs.9,02,504/- for assessment year 2012-13. The expenses of Rs.24,72,208/- included the interest expenses of Rs.13,96,831/- and other expenses of Rs.10,75,377/- for assessment year 2013-14. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the fund borrowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

158 BC, it has been so held by the Apex court in the case of 'ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon', (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) (Supra). 453/SRT/2019/AY.2013-14 Mahaveer Shantilal Jain 18. Considering the facts, as discussed above, we note that the assessment order is passed without issue of notice u/s 143 (3) of the Act and this defect