KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

capital gain and allowed deduction under Section 54B, which was conscious one, bearing in mind, explanation furnished by assessee against the specific enquiries raised during the course of assessment. On the other issue identified in the notice under Section 263

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

capital gain, in the hand of assessee. However, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under Section 54B of Rs. 30,31,390/- and deduction under Section 54F of Rs. 82,95,685/-. 3. Later on, assessment order was revised by the ld. Pr.CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under Section 263

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED are proved genuine by third party evidences - bank, broker; DP-demat account, and in the absence of any material to prove cash changing hands in the transaction, the addition made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Act, by treating the sale consideration as unexplained, sham, non-genuine is without any corroborative evidences. The addition

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED are proved genuine by third party\nevidences - bank, broker; DP-demat account, and in the absence of any material to\nprove cash changing hands in the transaction, the addition made by the assessing\nofficer under section 68 of the Act, by treating the sale consideration as unexplained,\nsham, non-genuine is without any corroborative evidences. The addition

RAJ ABHISHEK CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section. … …. … (10) the amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous

HOTEL ROYAL GARDEN,,DAMAN AND DIU (UT) vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Royal Garden, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefh2587H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca With Jayraj M. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2023

section 263 is valid. In this case on the facts of the record it can be observed that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind regarding the allowability of the exemption of the Long Term Capital Gain

MR. RAMANLAL RAGHABHI PATEL ,DAMAN vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramanlal Raghabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Near Check Post, Dabhel, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpp2952J

section 263 is valid. In this case on the facts of the record it can be observed that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind regarding the allowability of the exemption of the Long Term Capital Gain

REKHABEN JITENDRAKUMAR JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2013-14 Rekhaben Jitendrakumar Jain, The Pr.Commissioner Of 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Vs Income Tax-1 Adajan. Surat. Pan : Adypj 6066 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca : Shri Ashish Pophara, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg

capital gains. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee has come up in appeal before us, pleading that the ld.Pr.CIT has wrongly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263

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

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2018-19. Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad u/s 263

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, 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.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 31.03.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263

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

capital gains and income from other sources. The scrutiny assessment in the assessee’s case for AY 2013-14 was finalized, vide order u/s143(3) dated 14.03.2016, by accepting the returned income of Rs.34,91,530/-. 4.Subsequently, Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdictional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld.PCIT, on perusal of the scrutiny assessment, observed that the conditions

SHRI SUNNY CHADRAKANT FUDHANAWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIR3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

section 263 of the Act. In view of above facts and observations, the ld PCIT held that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, Ld. PCIT set aside the order of Assessing ITA No.271/SRT/2019 A.Y.14-15 Sh. Sunny C. Fudhnawala Officer with

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

capital gain to various beneficiaries; the LTCG exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee in her ITA Nos.343 & 344/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth return of income was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

capital gain to various beneficiaries; the LTCG exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee in her ITA Nos.343 & 344/SRT/2025/AY 2018-19 Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth return of income was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

VISHNUBHAI CHELABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Pr.C.I.T.,Surat-1, F-19, Divya Jyoti Apartment, Surat. Vs. Samul Dairy Road, Alkapuri, Surat-395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adipp 4007 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain in his show cause notice and also worked out the consequential short levy of tax of Rs. 21,32,502/-. The ld. Pr.CIT, thus recorded that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The assessee filed his reply on 18/03/2014. The contents of reply are recoded

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 13.03.2024 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat [in short, ‘PCIT’] for the assessment year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

NAYNABEN ARUNBHAI JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT SURAT-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital gain of Rs.96,42,734/-which was allowed by the Department. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT passed order u/s 263 setting aside the order of AO and directing him for de novo assessment. It was held by the Tribunal that the Ld. PCIT cannot exercise revision jurisdiction by simply alleging absence of ITA Nos.571-572/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14 & 14-15 Naynaben A Jain inquiry

NAYNABEN ARUNBHAI JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT SURAT-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital gain of Rs.96,42,734/-which was allowed by the Department. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT passed order u/s 263 setting aside the order of AO and directing him for de novo assessment. It was held by the Tribunal that the Ld. PCIT cannot exercise revision jurisdiction by simply alleging absence of ITA Nos.571-572/SRT/2024/AYs.13-14 & 14-15 Naynaben A Jain inquiry

SHRI RAJENDRAKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. A-37, Suryapur Society, Opp. Jain Temple, Adajan Patia, Surat-395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2055F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

section 263 of the Act, it was noticed by Ld. PCIT from the details in the computation of income submitted by the assessee during the scrutiny assessment proceedings that, a plot of land situated at 129 Palanpore, district Surat, in which he had 10% share, was sold during the year for Rs. 5,70,00,000/- and his share