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:

36 months. M/s KHCPL is not a listed company, thus the capital gain earned is Short Term Capital Gain and not Long Term Capital Gain. 6. The ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee furnished its reply through e-mail, which is recorded at page no.22 and 23 of impugned order. In last para on page 23 the ld.CIT(A) recorded

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI KACHCHADIA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

gains recorded that assessee has purchased the said land on 01.06.2007 and sold on 26.04.2010, within the period of 36 months. The Assessing Officer was also of the view that land being situated within the city limit is a capital asset and the Stamp Duty Authority determined the value of land at Rs.2.73 crores, therefore, the provision of Section

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

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held that

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held that

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The difference cost of acquisition between the assessee and the department amount to inaccurate particulars of income. The objection of assessee is accepted as it is only difference of information, however, the undisclosed long term capital gain is clearly falls under concealment of income

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)

Capital Gain added by the AO, confirmed by ld.CIT(A) is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 28. From the above judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai (supra), it is vivid that being co-owner, the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment

SMT. JYOTIBEN VINODBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143 (3) all dated 22.12.2016 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(6) Surat(in short “the AO”). 2. The above appeals belonging to Patel Group, of joint holder of property sold during year were heard together being common issue involved being considered together. 3. We are taking

SHRI SATYADEV NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143 (3) all dated 22.12.2016 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(6) Surat(in short “the AO”). 2. The above appeals belonging to Patel Group, of joint holder of property sold during year were heard together being common issue involved being considered together. 3. We are taking

SMT.URMILABEN NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143 (3) all dated 22.12.2016 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(6) Surat(in short “the AO”). 2. The above appeals belonging to Patel Group, of joint holder of property sold during year were heard together being common issue involved being considered together. 3. We are taking

SHRI TEJASH VINODBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the all five assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.12 To 15 & 260/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 1. Shri Tejas Dineshbhai Patel, 2. Income Tax X, Moti Fali, Pal Gam Surat Officer, Ward- Pan:Bgdpp 4514 L 2(3)(6) Surat 2. Smt. Urmilaben Naginbhai 2. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- 156, Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Bexpp 8659E 3. Shri Harishkumar Naginbhai 3. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- Moti Falia, Pal Gam Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bdapp 4551 R 4. Shri Satyadev Naginbhai, 4. Income Tax Patel,156 Moti Falia, Pal Gam Officer, Ward- Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan:Acvpp 3650Q 5. Smt. Jyotiben Vinodbhai 5. Income Tax Patel, Officer, Ward- X Moti Fali, Pal Gam, Surat 2(3)(6) Surat Pan: Bgdpp4516 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143 (3) all dated 22.12.2016 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(6) Surat(in short “the AO”). 2. The above appeals belonging to Patel Group, of joint holder of property sold during year were heard together being common issue involved being considered together. 3. We are taking

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

36. We note that Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 247, held that where Assessing Officer noted that assessee had indulged in scrip of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares and made addition under section

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

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

36,27,838/- being surplus on sale of shares received as gift to the book profit for taxation under section 115JB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to facts and law and deserve to be deleted. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee company has disclosed income by way of long-term capital gain

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,VAPI vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

36,27,838/- being surplus on sale of shares received as gift to the book profit for taxation under section 115JB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to facts and law and deserve to be deleted. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee company has disclosed income by way of long-term capital gain

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

36,27,838/- being surplus on sale of shares received as gift to the book profit for taxation under section 115JB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to facts and law and deserve to be deleted. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee company has disclosed income by way of long-term capital gain

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

36,27,838/- being surplus on sale of shares received as gift to the book profit for taxation under section 115JB. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to facts and law and deserve to be deleted. 5. Succinct facts are that the assessee company has disclosed income by way of long-term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital nature….” 5.5 In view of the above factual positions and the authoritative precedents cited supra, we are of the considered view that the AO was not correct in adding the notional exchange gain on foreign currency loan on the balance sheet date as income of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital nature….” 5.5 In view of the above factual positions and the authoritative precedents cited supra, we are of the considered view that the AO was not correct in adding the notional exchange gain on foreign currency loan on the balance sheet date as income of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting