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

1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 without satisfying conditions 2. The appellant submits that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought not to have invoked provisions of Section 263 on the very same point on which the Assessing Officer had made inquiry and taken position. Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel

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

Capital Gain. This is not the case of inadequate enquiry but is a clear case of lack of enquiry which makes it different from the case of Nirav Modi (supra). Obtaining of the information about the transaction cannot be taken as akin to enquiring about the information. This is a clear case of no enquiry for which the Ld. PCIT

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 of the Act. Before revising the assessment order, the ld. Pr.CIT

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

1:10 in the month of November 2010 and the price rose up after such split of shares and the assessee had sold its shares before such split in August 2010 itself. Hence this clearly implies that assessee was not involved into any bogus transactions. Had the assessee been involved, he would have known the activity of split

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

1 to 3 of Paper Book. The assessee sold the shares\nthrough SHCIL SERVICES LIMITED (Broker: Bombay Stock Exchange: SEBI Reg No.\nINB011253839) not only through proper banking channels but also the trading was\nconducted through recognized stock exchange through approved brokers in the normal\ncourse of share investment on which the STT was duly paid.\n29. The above narrated

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

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

1) of the Act, by calling information or explanation from assessee and to examine them in accordance with law. Thus, this is supervisory power of Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act, to make sure that Assessing Officer has conducted inquiry/or conducted further enquiry in appropriate cases to ensure that leakage of the Revenue prevented. 15. It is important

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

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

1) of the Act by the Directorate of Investigation Patna in the case of Penny Stock Indian Infotech & Software Ltd, (INDINFO) which is a BSE listed company, it was found that share of the said company had been rigged in synchronized way to provide accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain to various beneficiaries. The ld.Pr.CIT observed that Indian

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

1), under any other provisions of this Act. d. The Company has entered into an agreement with the Department of scientific and industrial Research for cooperation in such research and development facility. From the above it can be stated that the Assessee company claiming deduction U/s 35(2AB) satisfies all the conditions laid down in section 35(2AB) and hence

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

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

1,35,47,000/- (Rs. 1.35 crore). On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons under Section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 to the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that after considering the reply of assessee, he accepted the returned income in the assessment order dated 16/03/2022. Assessment order dated 16/03/2022

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 gains through manipulation of prices of penny-stock companies. Oasis Tradelink Ltd., the scrip involved in the assessee’s LTCG claim, is one of the companies identified by the Investigation Wing as being used for providing artificial gains. The Investigation Wing findings were specific, concrete and based on seized digital data, communications and statements. These findings were duly communicated

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 gains through manipulation of prices of penny-stock companies. Oasis Tradelink Ltd., the scrip involved in the assessee’s LTCG claim, is one of the companies identified by the Investigation Wing as being used for providing artificial gains. The Investigation Wing findings were specific, concrete and based on seized digital data, communications and statements. These findings were duly communicated

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

capital gain has been offered by the assessee therefore exemption u/s 54F of the Act, on the same property, should be allowed, as it has already been allowed in case of co-owner. The assessment has been made u/s 143(1) of the Act in case of co-owner of such land. Therefore, assessee should not be treated differently

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 u/s 45 of the Act. The difference between the value determined by the SVA and declared consideration was Rs.16,06,112/- [1,78,06,112 – 1,62,00,000], which was 9.02% and was more than the tolerance limit of 5% for the subject assessment year. The assessment order and the details called for and submitted during assessment

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

Capital Ltd. 2 Interest on unsecured 3,20,682 1,10,396 Late payment charges to loan Purchase parties and payment to each party is below Rs.5,000/- 70,161 Interest on Unsecured Loan obtained from Bipin Thakkar – HUF 81,000 Interest on Unsecured Loan obtained from two parties. 59,125 Other interest on Unsecured Loan. 3 Job work party

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), all dated 23.02.2024, by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Surat [in short Ld. PCIT’] for the assessment years (AY) 2013-14 and 2014-15, which in turn arose from the separate assessment orders passed by National-e Assessment Centre, Delhi/Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s