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

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "250", "28", "69", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the AO without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to present her case, especially after the seizure of records, and whether the land transactions constituted business income rather than capital gains

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

sections": [ "250", "147", "144", "144B", "69", "133A", "131(1A)", "46A", "250(4)", "28", "13" ], "issues": "Whether the profit on sale of lands should be taxed as capital gains

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

gain in his return of income. Thus, he has reason to believe about escapement of income of Rs. 95,60,600/- by invoking provisions of clause (b) of Explanation-2 of Section 147 of the Act. The basis of reopening is not in order for various reasons. First of all, the immovable property sold by assessee was an agricultural land

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 by making his own inferences and without giving an opportunity to Assessing officer of being heard even though he, himself accepted that the assessee misled the Assessing officer during the assessment proceeding by making faulty representation. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

capital gain by disallowing deduction under Section 54F of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed application under Rule 46A

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

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. 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

SHOBHANA DINESH TRIVEDI,VALSAD vs. ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 45(1) of the Act, the profit or gains arising from transfer of capital asset shall be deemed to be income of the assessee in the year in which transfer to place as provided u/s. 45(1) of the Act which clearly states that the entire gain shall be deemed to be income of the assessee in which

SHRI DHAVAL RAJKUMAR JAIN,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.416/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Dhaval Rajkumar Jain Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, “Mahvir” Airport Ward-Daman, Hotel Vs Road, Naii Daman, Daman- Diwanji Building, 396210 Devkanand, Daman- Pan No: Aedpj 9192 B 396210 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Capital Gains (STCG) on sale of impugned land. The assessee also filed various submission and documentary evidence and made prayer to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, on taking plea that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section

VIJAY RAMSINGH GOYAL,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT., SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

capital gain. No reply about the deposit in bank was given. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not filed complete submission explaining source of cash deposit and source of purchase of property nor any supported evidence was filed. Even before him, the assessee has not filed application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short

DEENDAYAL KANAIYALAL BAJAJ,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.05-06/Srt/2023 (Ays 2009-10 & 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deendayal Kanaiyalal Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj, F-2/B, The Palm Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vs Avenue, Vip Road, Vesu, Surat, Room No.213, 2Nd Surat-395007 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Abipb 6371 Q Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 along with medical papers of assessee submits that it would be appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee be directed to be more vigilant and to make complete compliance of various notice issued by the revenue officers without

DEENDAYAL KANAIYALAL BAJAJ,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.05-06/Srt/2023 (Ays 2009-10 & 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deendayal Kanaiyalal Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj, F-2/B, The Palm Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vs Avenue, Vip Road, Vesu, Surat, Room No.213, 2Nd Surat-395007 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Abipb 6371 Q Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 along with medical papers of assessee submits that it would be appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee be directed to be more vigilant and to make complete compliance of various notice issued by the revenue officers without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

gain of business of hospital. Therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act ought not to be invoked by the assessing officer. We note that ld Counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) 160/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Ltd (Supra), wherein

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. M/S NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

46A of the IT Rules, before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, ld CIT(A) remitted these additional evidences to the assessing officer for verification and examination and assessing officer was directed to submit a remand report regarding the additional evidences filed by the assessee. 20. The assessing officer, vide his letter dated 09.03.2018 submitted his report wherein he stated

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

46A of the IT Rules, before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, ld CIT(A) remitted these additional evidences to the assessing officer for verification and examination and assessing officer was directed to submit a remand report regarding the additional evidences filed by the assessee. 20. The assessing officer, vide his letter dated 09.03.2018 submitted his report wherein he stated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs. VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

46A of the I.T. Rules. The ld DR pointed out that what was prevented to the assessee to submit these additional evidences before the assessing officer, has not been explained by the assessee, hence additional evidences ought not to have admitted by the ld CIT(A). On the other hand, ld Counsel submitted that sufficient time was not given