SHRI PANKAJ KISHORCHANDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.303/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Pankaj Kishorchandra Desai Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 401, Vishal Society, Vidhya Vihar Vs. 123, Majura Gate, Surat Society, Jamnagar, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpd 9704 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in his order and concluded that in view of these provisions under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, the brought forward and current long term capital loss aggregating to Rs.26,50,798/- was mandatorily required to be set off against the long term capital gain of Rs.35,49

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

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

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

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

49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. SHRI VASUDEV D. GOPLANI, SURAT

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dcit, Central Circle-3, Shri Vasudev D Goplani, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, 3-B, Chandan Park Society, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Near Adajan Road, Majura Gate, Surat. Surat-395001. Pan : Abhpg3609B Revenue / Appellant Assessee /Respondent

49,270/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that Explanation 5A of section 271 of the Act is clearly applicable to this case as return of income was not filed till the date of search and due date of filing return of income had already expired. . Shri Vasudev

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ii) The assessee, therefore, submits that the penalty levied may be deleted. iii) The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal. 1 2. The brief facts of the case are that Assessing Officer had assessed the income at Rs. 28,49,83,580/- and had made

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

49,215/-. The assessment Vijay Champak Patel Assessment Year: 2011-12 proceedings under provisions of section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 07/03/2014 and the total income of the assessee for the period under consideration was assessed to be Rs.1,55,53,210/-. The assessee claimed deductions under section 54EC of the Act and under

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

section 112 of the Act, 1961 on capital gains computed u/s 50 of the Act, despite the fact that the deeming fiction u/s 50 of the Act is limited only to the mode of computation u/s 48 and 49 of the Act and does not affect the nature of the asset for the purpose of determining applicable tax rates under

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

1, Indraprastha Row House, Magob, Surat, by taking view that on examination of record, it was noted that the assessee has not purchased new asset but merely carried out construction of existing house owned 3 Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel Vs Pr.CIT since 2008. Thus, the condition of Section 54F are not fulfilled by the assessee and deduction was required

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground