CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

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. They have also carried out number of search and surveys in the office premises of more than 32 Share broking entities, which accepted that they were actively involved in the bogus LTCS/STCL Scam. The Assessing Officer also discussed in the assessment order the features of penny stocks. The Assessing Officer also observed that assessee is one such beneficiary

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 49 of the Act and it cannot be said that the assessee and the Donors were making such plans for the last 7 years to rig the stock price to generate bogus capital gains that too without any evidences whatsoever. 9.2 It is also pertinent to note that the assessee and / or the stock broker M/s P Didwania

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 49 of the Act and it cannot be said that the assessee and the Donors were making such plans for the last 7 years to rig the stock price to generate bogus capital gains that too without any evidences whatsoever. 9.2 It is also pertinent to note that the assessee and / or the stock broker M/s P Didwania

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

THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI GAJERA,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1522/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Gajera, Surat. 153, Vaikunthdham Society, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abapg3846B (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

Capital Gain. 4. Succinct facts qua ground nos. 1 and 2 are that return of income for assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 31.03.2013, declaring total income to the tune of Rs.26,65,690/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

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

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

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

KIRANKUMAR RAMANLAL NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Kirankumar Ramanlal Naik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 415, Dabhi Street, Near Zanda Chowk, Ward-2(3)(2), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akcpn2062P िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rushin Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

41,778/- as Long Term Capital Gain may please be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) did not consider that the reopening u/s.147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO's report is not a good practice and that is beyond the period of 4 years, considered to be a change of opinion

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

section 69C on account of commission paid @ 2% or 3% of bogus long term capital gain. In the assessee`s case AO added Rs.10426 (3% of Rs.3,47,564). Since, we have deleted the alleged addition of Rs.3,47,564/-, hence addition made by AO does not have leg to stand, therefore it is hereby deleted. 41

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

41 rule 33\nread with Section 260A (7) of the Act confers ample powers on this Court to\ninterfere with the orders of the learned Tribunal.\n95. Regarding the burden of proof in a case arising under Section 68 of the\nAct, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in\nCIT Nippun

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

PREETIBEN CHHATRASINGH CHAUHAN,SILVASSA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

41,500/ has not been explained by the assessee. Furthermore, if total sale consideration is taken at Rs.2,11,00,000/- then capital gain comes to Rs.1,84,17,345/-. #2 Total sale consideration Rs.2,11,00,000/- Less indexed loss of acquisition Rs. 8,69,455/- Less indexed loss of improvement Rs. 18,13,200/- Long term capital gain

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, 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.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

Capital Gain account on or before the due date (i.e. 07.09.2015 for A.Y. 2015-16) for furnishing return of income under section 139 of the Act, the claim of deduction u/s 54F should be restricted to Rs.10,00.000/-instead of Rs.44,48,230/- allowed in assessment. On consideration of above irregularities, the assessment order is found to be erroneous

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

capital gain. Against the sale transaction the assessee was required to invest for purchase of residential unit before one year or after two years from the date of sale of property i.e. 26.09.2012. The assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s 54 as he has received sale consideration of the flat as under and invested accordingly. Flat Nop.601 Date of receipt