JHONSON ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

section 2(47) took place only on 15.07.2006. The assessee was not having right prior to this date and was not having right to specific performance. The right to specific performance accrues to the assessee as per Clause 6 of agreement to sale dated 06.04.1993, only on 27.05.2005 when full payments of agreed consideration were made to seller

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

271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act is initiated separately on this point.” 5. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, at Rs.52,04,000/-against the long term capital gain

YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain Rs.3,41,595/- ITA.580/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Yash B. Tamakuwala Therefore, Assessing Officer noted that willful omission (Had the assessee`s income not been scrutinized, the assessee’s income of Rs.3,41,595/- would have escaped assessment) by the assessee, is in contravention of set principles of law and would attract the penalty under section 271

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 arising from sale of shares. The assessee during the relevant period had sold shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.14,99,917/-. The authorities below held the sale transaction in aforementioned scripts as bogus and thus, made addition under section 68 of the Act. We find that similar disallowance was made in the case

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

capital gain was in fact taxable as ‘income from other sources’ and, accordingly, paid differential tax on said amount before issuance of notice under section 148, said conduct of assessee being bona fide in nature, impugned penalty order passed under section 271

PRAKASHSINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

capital gain of Rs. 13,39,700/- and initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain. The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under Section 271

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)

section 48 of the Act is worked out at Rs.24,22,947/-. As per stamp duty authority the assessee’s share being 6.25% of sale value in the property comes to Rs.25,56,310/-. Thus capital gain comes to Rs. 1,33,363/-, which was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The capital gain of Rs.1

JAYANTILAL AMBARAM PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIR.2(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayantilal Ambaram Patel Huf, A.C.I.T., 5, Western Seven Seas, Behind Circle-2(3), Vs. Gangeshwar Temple, Opp. Saint Surat. Mark School, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat- 395009. Pan No. Aafhj 0354 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The division Bench of Surat Tribunal has already

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain of Rs. 4,58,954/- was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessing officer initiated penalty for concealment of income. No further appeal was filed by assessee against such addition in quantum assessment. 3. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271

SHRI MAHESHBHAI M.PANDYA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI

In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.388/Srt/2018 (Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Maheshbhai M Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 9, Dipkiran Co-Op. Hsc, Ward-6, Vapi, Vs Society, Nr.N.H.-8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Pan No. Afupp 6452 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

capital gain (LTCG). On the LTCG, the assessee paid due tax. Thereafter, the Assessing 4 Sh. Maheshbhai M Pandya Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income and levied penalty vide order dated 29.04.2016. Before levying penalty, the Assessing Officer recorded that show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s., 271

ASHVIN NARAYAN BAJORIA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

capital gain had been declared by assessee in original return, was bogus, issued notice under section 148 to assessee. The assessee in response to said notice, assessee filed revised return surrendering entire 6 Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) amount of sale proceeds of shares to buy peace of mind and to avoid hazards of litigation and also to save himself from

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

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

capital gains earned by him, on the same analogy, the transfer is also complete in favour of the purchaser also. The provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner to say that transfer vis-a-vis selling is complete but vis-a-vis purchase is not complete in respect of same transaction. In view of this, the word 'Purchase' cannot

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

capital gain as accommodation entries and bogus entries as accommodation entries and bogus entries. 2.0(c) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on the facts 2.0(c) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on the facts 2.0(c) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

capital gains (STCG) from share transaction. Besides, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which were not responded to, the AO passed the penalty order on 05.09.2023, imposing minimum penalty of Rs.54,22,616/- u/s.271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

capital gains (STCG) from share transaction. Besides, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which were not responded to, the AO passed the penalty order on 05.09.2023, imposing minimum penalty of Rs.54,22,616/- u/s.271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars

KANCHANBEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kanchanben Maheshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 170, Tarsada Bar, Al Mandvi, Surat – Ward – 2, 394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkipp5896G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2025

gain on sale of agriculture land which is not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the contention

HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

capital gains and only when the escapement of income came to the notice of Income Tax Department, the assessee offered such income for taxation. Thus Explanation-3 to Section 271