KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

35 ITR 594 (SC) held that all attendant facts and circumstances of the case is to be seen to determine whether the income is "capital gain" or "business income" 15. The CBDT too has in their Circular no. 4/2007 date 15.06.2007 accepted that a businessman can have two separate portfolios, one as a "trading portfolio" and another for "holding investments

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

capital receipt had been concluded against the revenue. The satisfaction of the Commissioner, therefore, was based on no material, either legal or factual, which would have given him the jurisdiction to take action under section 263.” 17. In view of the above submission, your honours are requested to quash the revision order passed

M/S. GLOBE TEXTILES,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Globe Textiles, Vs. Ito, 45-46, Hashimi Estate, Ward – 2(1), Udhna Main Road, Surat. Surat-394 210. [Pan No. Aacfg 2121 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

1,04,94,105 Less: Set off of Losses - Current Year Business & Depreciation Loss 16,35,871 - Brought forward Business Loss 88,58,234 Net income Nil It appears from the record that the assessee was directed to explain as to why the amount of Rs.1,04,94,105/- should not be treated as short term capital gain

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in enhancing addition made by Assessing Officer by considering Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,98,97,695/- on account of sale of unlisted equity shares held for more than 12 months as Short-Term Capital Gain

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

gains were tax under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the return of income computation under treatment was furnished before the lower authorities. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the 27 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 decision

CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the [Assessing] Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause

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

capital Gain (LTCG) in the subsequent year`s Return of Income filed for A.Y. 2013-14 as per the provision of section 54F(4) of the Act. Hence, ld. Counsel submits before us that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to defraud the revenue and hence no adverse inference could be drawn that

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. SWASTIK ENTERPRISES, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Swastik Enterprises, Circle-2(3), R.S. No. 130, F.P. 36, T.P.S. 37, Vs. Surat. Behind Althan Gam, Althan, Surat. Pan No. Aakfm 1069 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 20/03/2020 for the Assessment year (AY) 2014-15. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts

KETAN LALITBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1,20,05,000 jointly with 7 co-owners in which assessee share is worked out at Rs. 11,65,000. Thus, the short-term capital gains shown is actually long-term capital gain as period of purchase and sale exceeded 3 years. The assessee further claimed that cost of improvement shown at Rs. 15,01,400 is actually investment

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,05,85,101 - 35,82,234) = 70,02,867/- This long term capital gain of Rs. 70,02,867/- was added back to the total income of the assessee during the year and long term capital loss claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.2,68,80,493/- was disallowed by the assessing officer. 16. Aggrieved

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause