SHRI CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,U T OF D & NH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Krishnakumar Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa C-Twin Bunngalow 4, Manorath Ward-Silvassa. Vs. Residency, Gurudev Complex, Silvasa-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2308B (Assessee) (Respondent) Chandrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Vs. Parmarwadi, Sayli Road, Silvassa, Ward-Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli-3962310. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp9167F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren R Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

2) of section 45 of the Act deals with the situation where the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its treatment by him as stock-in- trade of a business carried on by him shall be chargeable to income- tax as his income of the previous

ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital expenditure and accumulation of Rs.41.74 lakh by taking view that the main objective of the assessee was the development of Gem and Jewellery Parks, which has not been completed in a decade’s time. Further the assessee failed to focus on advancement, protection and development of trade and commerce and industry. The Assessing Officer invoked the provision of section

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

capital expenditure and accumulation of Rs.41.74 lakh by taking view that the main objective of the assessee was the development of Gem and Jewellery Parks, which has not been completed in a decade’s time. Further the assessee failed to focus on advancement, protection and development of trade and commerce and industry. The Assessing Officer invoked the provision of section

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gain Ketan N. Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.321/SRT/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 account in Bank of Baroda and exemption under section 54F of the Act was also denied. 15. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that admission by the representative of assessee on misconception of law is not binding on the assessee. The assessee was clearly

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

2(14) of the Act defines the term "capital asset". It states that property "whether connected to business or not" is "capital asset". Hence, even if an asset is connected to business, the gain on the sale is "capital gain". Even section 50 of the Income Tax Act lay down that the gain on the sale of depreciable asset used

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)

15-16 Girdharbhai H Gajera from capital asset to stock-in-trade, such land was agricultural land itself and as per provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act, assessee is not liable for any tax under the head “income from capital gain

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

2) in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the income-tax under section 139. Section 139 cannot mean only section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of section 139. Under sub- section (4) of section

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

15 Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with......." 8. The impugned order when is adjudged in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court

CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 45(2) clearly speaks out that when the stock in trade is either sold or otherwise transferred would make the assessee liable for capital gain tax. The assessee has responded that the value of asset recorded in the books as capital introduction by the assessee was taken at nil value therefore, the assessee was not liable

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.”

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 gain and further addition of Rs.2.6 Crore should not be made as per the provision of section 50C. The assessee

KHAREL VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income changeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 42. The Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) lays down

KHAREL VIBHAG V. V. K.S. M. LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income changeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 42. The Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) lays down

MAROLI BAZAAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income changeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 42. The Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) lays down

M/S. MAROLI BAZAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income changeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". 42. The Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. and Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) lays down

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

2) 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. As per this, the deduction u/s 54EC is allowable only upto Rs.50,00,000/- as per the second proviso to S. 54EC(1). However, this proviso was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and therefore it is not applicable to A.Y. 2014- 15. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in case

SHRI DALPATBHAI DAYHABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

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:

15 AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11 of more than ten thousand, was of no consequence. He, therefore, claimed that the property in question was an agricultural land not covered by section 2(14). On reference, the High Court interpreting section 2(14)(iii)(a) opined that the property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which

SMT. NIRUBEN ISHVARBHAI PATEL L/H OF LATE ISHVARBHAI G. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

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:

15 AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11 of more than ten thousand, was of no consequence. He, therefore, claimed that the property in question was an agricultural land not covered by section 2(14). On reference, the High Court interpreting section 2(14)(iii)(a) opined that the property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which

SMT. VALIBEN NARSHIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

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:

15 AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11 of more than ten thousand, was of no consequence. He, therefore, claimed that the property in question was an agricultural land not covered by section 2(14). On reference, the High Court interpreting section 2(14)(iii)(a) opined that the property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which

SMT. NARMADABEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

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:

15 AYs 2007-08 to 2010-11 of more than ten thousand, was of no consequence. He, therefore, claimed that the property in question was an agricultural land not covered by section 2(14). On reference, the High Court interpreting section 2(14)(iii)(a) opined that the property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which