SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

249 (SC). 4. The learned D.R. objected to admission of the additional ground as the present appeal has arisen from second round of set-aside proceedings as per direction of the Tribunal in which ground of reopening of assessment was set at rest as it was not pressed by the assessee and this ground was never raised even though assessment

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

249 (SC). 4. The learned D.R. objected to admission of the additional ground as the present appeal has arisen from second round of set-aside proceedings as per direction of the Tribunal in which ground of reopening of assessment was set at rest as it was not pressed by the assessee and this ground was never raised even though assessment

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

capital Gain (LTCG) in the subsequent year`s Return of Income filed for A.Y. 2013-14 as per the provision of section 54F(4) of the Act. Hence, ld. Counsel submits before us that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to defraud the revenue and hence no adverse inference could be drawn that

SHRI VIJAYBHANSINGH LALLUSINGH RAJPUT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2990/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Vijaybhaisingh Lallusingh Rajput V. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 258/10-11 Near Shiv Ward-2(3)(4), Surat. Vijay Processors, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat – 394221. [Pan:Abxpr3970L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Ramesh Kumar Malapani, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 31.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 28.09.2018 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated 24.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

capital gains of Rs. 46,76,143 by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act without referring or directing to Ld. AO to refer the matter to DVO for valuation under section 50C (2) of the Act. “4 Additional ground 3- states that CIT (A) erred in not granting deduction of correct amount of cost of acquisition

NAROTTAMBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

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

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

capital gain and assessed the same to tax. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine holding that since the assessee had not filed return of income and had not paid advance tax as required under section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain is chargeable on the same. The CIT (A) has wrongly observed that the sale of agricultural land to SMC under compulsory acquisition. In support of this contentions, the appellant has placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Amrutbhai S. Patel Tax Appeal No. 355 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (copy of order

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain is chargeable on the same. The CIT (A) has wrongly observed that the sale of agricultural land to SMC under compulsory acquisition. In support of this contentions, the appellant has placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Amrutbhai S. Patel Tax Appeal No. 355 of 2013 dated 15.04.2013 of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (copy of order

SHRI ISHWARBHAI ZINABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

PREMILABEN M. BHANDARI,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

VASANTBHAI MOHANBHAI BHANDHARI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI BALWANTRAY M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI GOPALBHAI H. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI DINESHCHANDRA C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI MOHANBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI NAVNITBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI ISHWARBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI SAMEERKUMAR J. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

3. The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal stating that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding the appellant ineligible for exemption under section 10(37) on the basis of failure to qualify definition of “Compulsory acquisition” and ought to have held acquisition of impugned agricultural land by Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) eligible for exemption under