SHRI KRISHNAKUMAR RAMSINH PARMAR,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, VAPI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Krishnakumar Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa C-Twin Bunngalow 4, Manorath Ward-Silvassa. Vs. Residency, Gurudev Complex, Silvasa-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2308B (Assessee) (Respondent) Chandrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Vs. Parmarwadi, Sayli Road, Silvassa, Ward-Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli-3962310. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp9167F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren R Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

1) Charge of Capital Gains: The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charge of capital gains in respect of Alwara Lands which had no cost. (2) Determination of capital gain at Rs.33,85,312/- (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding

SHRI CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,U T OF D & NH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Krishnakumar Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa C-Twin Bunngalow 4, Manorath Ward-Silvassa. Vs. Residency, Gurudev Complex, Silvasa-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2308B (Assessee) (Respondent) Chandrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Vs. Parmarwadi, Sayli Road, Silvassa, Ward-Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli-3962310. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp9167F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren R Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

1) Charge of Capital Gains: The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charge of capital gains in respect of Alwara Lands which had no cost. (2) Determination of capital gain at Rs.33,85,312/- (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

4. We have heard Mr. J. Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue; Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in T.C.(A) No.419 of 2014 and Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in T.C.(A) No.533 of 2014. 5. The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the first proviso

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)

1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in taxing gain from sale of land as business income instead of Long Term Capital Gain disregarding the evidences and facts on record. The gain of Rs.3,99,10,520/- be treated as Long Term Capital Gain instead of Business Income. 2. The learned

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

Section 2(14) of the Act, assessee is not liable for any tax under the head “income from capital gain”. When above land was sold, assessee received consideration of Rs.2,28,72,600 which is exactly the same as Jantri value prevailing on the date of conversion hence income from business and profession in present case is nil. The assessee

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

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

SHRI HIMMATBHAI MOHANBHAI KHENI,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

section 54F. Considering the facts that we have reverse the treatment of short term capital gain as long term capital gain, therefore, the ground no.2 is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer 10 Assessment Year.2010-11 Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni to examine the claim of assessee and passed the order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT vs. JAYSINH GULABSINH BODANA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Surat. 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Cross Objection No. 17/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of An Ita No.410/Srt/2019] Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Surat. Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/06/2022 15/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 48 - Held, yes - Whether therefore, while computing capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by assessee under a gift or will, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held asset and not year in which assessee became owner of asset - Held, yes [In favour of assessee

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.”

1) and 143(2) proceeded for reassessment. The AO also issued show cause notice on 17.02.2015 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why stamp value of Rs.4.6 Crores be not treated as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain and further addition of Rs.2.6 Crore should not be made as per the provision of section

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

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that premium amount of Rs.49.65 lacs as shown in the column No.4 is not eligible for deduction as the assessee is not claiming premium amount separately by amortizing the same over the period

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

1. I am a senior citizen widow lady. I am a tax compliant citizen. In the past I\nlost my husband (ex MP Daman) during unfortunate corona pandemic. Since\nthen I was not in stable healthy/mental condition to follow up and comply the\ndepartmental notices. I already have discontinued all my business activities\nsince long. Currently I am struggling with