CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "250", "28", "69", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the AO without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to present her case, especially after the seizure of records, and whether the land transactions constituted business income rather than capital gains

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

sections": [ "250", "147", "144", "144B", "69", "133A", "131(1A)", "46A", "250(4)", "28", "13" ], "issues": "Whether the profit on sale of lands should be taxed as capital gains

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

capital gain for purchase of flat No. 401 to 404 of Sagardeep Flats, Ridge Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 54F by taking a view that the 11 ACIT Vs Manish Sumatilal Shah assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of one residential house. Before

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 16.09.2024 [in short, “the CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the appeal are as under: “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), both dated 12.09.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), both dated 12.09.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

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 Gains (LTCG) on the said withdrawn amount in the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee was asked to furnish the explanation as to why the deduction so claimed u/s.54F of the Act should not be disallowed. Since, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee did not offer any explanation, therefore the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

250/- has been invested in cash for the said land block no. 786 by the purchasers. Shri Rajendra chandak and Shri Jayantibhai B. Patel are the sellers and Shri Vinod Goswami, Vishal N. Jalan and Rakesh Khetan are the purchasers. The on-money invested by Shri Vinod Goswami, Shri Vishal N Jalan and Shri Rakesh Khetan are Rs.8

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 Ground-1: On the facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1) The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the assessee

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 13.11.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, “the CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2017. 2. Grounds

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

section 50C of the Act. The AO\nissued show cause notice on 02.03.2022, which is at page 3 to 4 of the\nassessment order. The AO found that the assessee had sold immovable\nproperty (land) along with four co-owners. The assessee has failed to disclose\nthe long-term capital gain (LTCG) income and has not offered any income

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in ITA No.364 & 366/SRT/2025/AY 2020-21 & 2018-19 & Co. No.11/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Sahajanand Medical Technologies Ltd. short, 'the Act’) dated 13.01.2025 and 17.01.2025 by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2020-21 and 2018-19. With consent of the parties

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in ITA No.364 & 366/SRT/2025/AY 2020-21 & 2018-19 & Co. No.11/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Sahajanand Medical Technologies Ltd. short, 'the Act’) dated 13.01.2025 and 17.01.2025 by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2020-21 and 2018-19. With consent of the parties

JAYA RINKUBHAI BANDUKWALA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(1) SURAT, SURAT

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act') both\ndated 11.03.2025 by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)'] for the\n assessment year (AY) 2018-19. One appeal is against quantum assessment and\nother is against penalty levied under section 272A

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JB is not applicable in such situation. b. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Insanyat Trust (173 ITR 248) ii. 203/349 (Guj) iii. 209/390 (Guj) iv. 209/865 (Guj) v. 252/610 (Guj) vi. 258/712 (Guj) 3. Adopting notes to accounts does not amount to qualification. Reliance is placed on Paragraph 3.9 and in particular

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JB is not applicable in such situation. b. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Insanyat Trust (173 ITR 248) ii. 203/349 (Guj) iii. 209/390 (Guj) iv. 209/865 (Guj) v. 252/610 (Guj) vi. 258/712 (Guj) 3. Adopting notes to accounts does not amount to qualification. Reliance is placed on Paragraph 3.9 and in particular

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,VAPI vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JB is not applicable in such situation. b. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Insanyat Trust (173 ITR 248) ii. 203/349 (Guj) iii. 209/390 (Guj) iv. 209/865 (Guj) v. 252/610 (Guj) vi. 258/712 (Guj) 3. Adopting notes to accounts does not amount to qualification. Reliance is placed on Paragraph 3.9 and in particular