SHRI HIMMATBHAI MOHANBHAI KHENI,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

section 143(3) dated 28.03.2013 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. “1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.73,37,140/- by treating the transaction of sale of land under Short Term Capital Gain on the basis of purchase deed dtd. 05.12.2006 instead of Stakhat-cum-Kabja Karat

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to the assessee nor cross examination was allowed by the learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee." 3. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the assessee discharged his onus

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

capital gains, the status of one of the property is “Bin Kheti Premium Patra Land”. Thus, the status of land is non- agricultural land at the time of purchase and not eligible for deduction under section 54B of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption of Rs.22,54,913/-. 7. Aggrieved

BHANUBEN RAMANBHAI SURATI(ALIAS PATEL) L/H OF LATE RAMANBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 and\nsubmitted that capital gain is taxable in FY.2011-12 (i.e., AY.2012-13) and not\nAY.2013-14. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of\nChaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT, 260

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

260,145 N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (5) K.G. Parmar Nil No 40,000 Nil Address: N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (6) Madhuben Arvindbhai Parmar 522,000 Yes 78,000 600,000 Address: N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (7) M.C. Desai Arts & Com. College 500,000 No 500,000 Nil Address: N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (8) Rambhai M. Raval

SHRI DHAVAL RAJKUMAR JAIN,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.416/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Dhaval Rajkumar Jain Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, “Mahvir” Airport Ward-Daman, Hotel Vs Road, Naii Daman, Daman- Diwanji Building, 396210 Devkanand, Daman- Pan No: Aedpj 9192 B 396210 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 147 for assessment year 2011-12. The case was reopened on the basis of information that assessee has sold immovable property during the financial year 2010-11 and assessee has not shown capital gains in his regular return of income filed on 31.03.2012. The assessee has filed return of income declaring income of Rs.3,62,260

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