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

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

200/- and agricultural income of Rs. 16,10,971/-. The return of income was processed and accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Thereafter, the case was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee sold immovable property situated at R.S. No. 207/1-A, Block No. 264, in village Lajpor, Taluka –Choryasi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

3 ACIT Vs Manish Sumatilal Shah 401, 402, 403 and 404, situated at 4th floor of complex known as “Sagardeep Flats”, Ridge Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer called the assessee to explain the claim of deduction on the ground that as per provisions of Section 54F of the Act, investment in only one residential unit

PREETIBEN CHHATRASINGH CHAUHAN,SILVASSA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

200/- Long term capital gain Rs.1,84,17,345/- From the above, it can be seen that instead of showing long term capital gain at Rs.1,84,17,345/- the assessee has offered only Rs.36,75,845/-. In view of the above, it is proposed to revise the assessment u/s 263 of the Act. You are hereby required to furnish

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The difference cost of acquisition between the assessee and the department amount to inaccurate particulars of income. The objection of assessee is accepted as it is only difference of information, however, the undisclosed long term capital gain is clearly falls under concealment of income

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

section 263 proposing to revise the assessment made by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3), Surat in the case of above named client for the assessment year 2013-14. In the order passed u/s 143(3) your goodself has observed that following claim/expenses required to be disallowed in the interest of the revenue. 435/SRT/2018 AY.2013-14 Dineshbhai

KIRIT BABUBHAI JHAVERI,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain of Rs.16,10,124/- in his return of income, therefore, balance LTCG of Rs.83,13,033/- (99,23,153 – 16,10,124) was added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, order u/s.143(3) of the I T Act was passed on 21.12.2017 and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.99

CHETANBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.228/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Chetanbhaiprahladbhaigami Principalcommissioner Of Income Tax-1,Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar 39, China Gate-1, Near Spring Vs. Valley, Althan, Surat-395017 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp6880C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Capital Gain 3,16,46,960/- ITA No.228/SRT/2023 AY.18-19 Chetanbhai P Gami 5. In the calculation of LTCG, the assessee has claimed cost of acquisition at Rs.84,11,040/-. However, on verification of the records the cost of acquisition is recalculated at Rs.36,20,866/- as under: Sr.No. Particulars Amount (Rs) 1 Cost of acquisition (F.Y 2007-08) 2 Consideration

PRAKASHBHAI MANCHHARAM MISTRY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.132/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Prakash Manchharam Mistry, Vs. The Ito, 57, Viramnagar Society, Dabholi, Ward – 3(2)(1), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqtpm1279Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

capital gain of Rs.35,00,200/- and also made addition of Rs.22,10,884/- u/s 50C of the Act (total income of Rs.57,11,080/-) by passing order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.10.2019. Subsequently, assessee requested for rectification stating that the AO has made addition twice u/s 50C of the Act. The AO vide order

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

200,000 Nil Address: N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (13) Ramaben A. Vaghela Nil No 1,965,524 758,004 10. We have also carefully gone through the copy of ledger account of all the aforementioned creditors. We find that inadvertently the tax auditor has treated the aforementioned persons under the head “unsecured loan” whereas, in fact, all the above persons

SHRI MOHANBHAI R. VARLI,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, SILVASSA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Mohanbhai R Varli, I.T.O., Opp: Dayat Falia, Piparia, Amli, Silvassa Ward, Vs. Silvassa. Silvassa. Pan No. Aeipv 0231 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue M/S Uttambhai V Patel, I.T.O., Gayatri Temple, Mnadir Falia, Silvassa Ward, Vs. Silvassa. Silvassa. Pan No. Aqgpp 2165 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by two different assessees are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 17/03/2017 for the Assessment year (AY) 2012-13. In both these appeals, the assessee(s) has raised certain

M/S. UTTAMBHAI V. PATEL,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, SILVASSA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Mohanbhai R Varli, I.T.O., Opp: Dayat Falia, Piparia, Amli, Silvassa Ward, Vs. Silvassa. Silvassa. Pan No. Aeipv 0231 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue M/S Uttambhai V Patel, I.T.O., Gayatri Temple, Mnadir Falia, Silvassa Ward, Vs. Silvassa. Silvassa. Pan No. Aqgpp 2165 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by two different assessees are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 17/03/2017 for the Assessment year (AY) 2012-13. In both these appeals, the assessee(s) has raised certain

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

200. Out of this, the assessee has treated 20% of the receipt amounting to Rs.3,63 85,440 as royalty for use of process/technology (hereinafter referred to as technical know-how) and 80% of the above receipts amounting to Rs.14,55,41,760 were treated as consideration for loss of source of income and hence, as capital receipt. The assessee

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

200. Out of this, the assessee has treated 20% of the receipt amounting to Rs.3,63 85,440 as royalty for use of process/technology (hereinafter referred to as technical know-how) and 80% of the above receipts amounting to Rs.14,55,41,760 were treated as consideration for loss of source of income and hence, as capital receipt. The assessee

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

RAHULKUMAR SHANTILAL SHAH,BARDOLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. 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 erred in confirming

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PRIVATE LIMITED,DAMAN & DIU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

200% of the expenditure as claimed by the assessee. However, we note that neither the prescribed authority (Refer page 82 & 83 of PB) nor the AO has applied the mind as to the expenditure, actually incurred for the R&D facility at Sipaigachi. Merely because the prescribed authority (DSIR) failed to send intimation in Form 3CL in respect of expenditure

SURESH KUMAR GIDDALURU,BANGALORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT ITO, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT

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

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

200/- on account of computing short term capital gain by valuing 10 percent of the estimated cost of acquisition. Suresh Kumar Giddaluru Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 3. 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 erred in confirming

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