HILTON GROUP,SURAT vs. PCIT, (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax may arise when the stock-in-trade is sold. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for assessee submits that assessee has submitted documentary evidences during the ITA.58 & 59/SRT/2021, 60 to 62/SRT/2021 & 191 & 192/SRT/2021 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 assessment stage and Assessing Officer has examined the same and taken the possible view. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing

RAMESH KUMAR GORDHAN KATHIRIYA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax may arise when the stock-in-trade is sold. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for assessee submits that assessee has submitted documentary evidences during the ITA.58 & 59/SRT/2021, 60 to 62/SRT/2021 & 191 & 192/SRT/2021 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 assessment stage and Assessing Officer has examined the same and taken the possible view. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing

HILTON GROUP,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax may arise when the stock-in-trade is sold. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for assessee submits that assessee has submitted documentary evidences during the ITA.58 & 59/SRT/2021, 60 to 62/SRT/2021 & 191 & 192/SRT/2021 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 assessment stage and Assessing Officer has examined the same and taken the possible view. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing

ASHOKBHAI NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax may arise when the stock-in-trade is sold. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for assessee submits that assessee has submitted documentary evidences during the ITA.58 & 59/SRT/2021, 60 to 62/SRT/2021 & 191 & 192/SRT/2021 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 assessment stage and Assessing Officer has examined the same and taken the possible view. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing

RAMESH KUMAR GORDHAN KATHIRIYA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains tax may arise when the stock-in-trade is sold. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for assessee submits that assessee has submitted documentary evidences during the ITA.58 & 59/SRT/2021, 60 to 62/SRT/2021 & 191 & 192/SRT/2021 A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 assessment stage and Assessing Officer has examined the same and taken the possible view. Therefore, assessment order passed by the Assessing

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR ARJANBHAI VEKARIA, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.339/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Rajeshkumar Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Arjanbhai Vekaria, Vs Surat, Room No.301, 503, Trade Centre, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Ring Road, Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 Pan No: Acopv 1228 P Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “Ld. NFAC/ Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 19.10.2022 for assessment year 2014-15, which in turn arises from the addition made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Surat /Assessing Officer in assessment order passed under section

SHRI BALVANTBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Shri Balvantbhai Narottambhai Patel, I.T.O. 129, Kesariu Faliyu Masma Olpad, Ward 2(2)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Bkapp 1881 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,21,282) On the basis of above working, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 38,03,718/- while passing the assessment order on 30/3/2015. 4. Aggrieved by the additions of long–term capital gain of Rs. 38,78,718/- in the assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

capital gains’, and ‘Income from other sources’ will not be part of book profit. Therefore, the excess payment of remuneration of Rs.2,24,247/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed

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 was based on detailed enquiry of Investigation Wing and the assessee has accepted the addition, thus he satisfied that the levy of penalty by Assessing Officer was justified. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

Gain(LTCG) from such funds are not exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. It was to be taxed u/s 112 of the Act. Thus, ld PCIT noticed that there is underassessment of income to the extent of Rs.53,00,470/-, under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules and exemption claimed

SMT. KAVITA DIPESH SHAH,SURAT vs. THE PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

capital gain chargeable under section 45 and their computation is to be in accordance with the provisions that follow section 45 and there is no notion of indirect transfer in section 45. Meaning thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that controlling interest cannot be said to be that any income offered explained is allowable or not allowable

SHRI DIPESH L. SHAH,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

capital gain chargeable under section 45 and their computation is to be in accordance with the provisions that follow section 45 and there is no notion of indirect transfer in section 45. Meaning thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that controlling interest cannot be said to be that any income offered explained is allowable or not allowable

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

282,000 2 Ritu Jain (TDS Not Applicable) ABTPJ5084F 276,000 3 Kalpesh Mangukiya (TDS Deducted) AOAPM5092C 900,000 TOTAL 1,458,000 194J - TDS on Professional & Audit Fees: 1-Apr-2017 to 31-Mar-2018 Sr. Name Amount No. 194J - Professional & Audit Fees: 1 Kiritkumar H. Thakkar (TDS Deducted) ABVPT3942Q 95,000 2 Mendpara Sangani & Co. (TDS AAWFM8259R 1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURA, SURAT vs. PIPODRA TEXTILE PARK LLP, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. Pipodra Textile Park Llp, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp8206B (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.27/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (A/O Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Pipodra Textile Park Llp Vs. Acit, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat– 395 002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp 8206 B (Co-Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 29.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018- 19, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assistant ITA No.795/Srt/2024 & CO 27/SRT/2024 A.Y 18-19 Pipodra Textile Park LLP Commissioner

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

gains or not. The sale of the business was upheld as genuine business transaction. However, the AO has never doubted the genuineness of the slump sale but raised the issue of valuation and payment made towards the purchase of intangible assets in form of manufacturing and process know-how etc., Therefore, the assessee has not justified as how the assets

NEELU MAHANSARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1:7 on 14.02.2013 accordingly allotted 7000 bonus share and assessee became owner of 8000 shares thereafter shares were splitted into and holding became 80000 shares out of which assessee sold 30000 shares in financial year 2013-14 and sale transaction was received in last week of March, 2014 and consideration was not received till 31st March 2014. Thus

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

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

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

gain on\nfluctuation in price/ value. Thus, the assessee earned income from referral,\ninterest income from lending of coins and from staking. DKD cons were operated\nin pseudonymous ownership without any physical address. It functioned as\nscheme with lending and escrows. All such details were found from the personal\nLaptop of assessee \"Snjay_hp_laptop_320_gb-“, which was seized