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.”

capital gain and further addition of Rs.2.6 Crore should not be made as per the provision of section 50C. The assessee

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

capital gain of Rs. 2.68 crores in the assessment order dated 24/12/2018 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the additions and reopening, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reopening, invocation of Section 50C

SHRI VIJAYBHANSINGH LALLUSINGH RAJPUT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2990/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Vijaybhaisingh Lallusingh Rajput V. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 258/10-11 Near Shiv Ward-2(3)(4), Surat. Vijay Processors, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat – 394221. [Pan:Abxpr3970L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Ramesh Kumar Malapani, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 31.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 28.09.2018 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated 24.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

section 50C is not applicable. However, the AO observed that the assessee has treated the Vijaysingh Lalusingh Rajput v. ITO2(3)(4) Surat /I.T.A. No. 2990/Ahd/2015/A.Y.11-12 Page 4 of 14 property under question as capital asset by showing the capital gains

LATE SHRI PRAKASHCHANDRA GOYAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.29/Ahd/2017/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Prakashchandra Goyal(L/H Of Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Late Shri Kapil Prakashchandra Ward-1(3)(4), Surat. Goyal), A-1002, Meghdhanush Apartment Sarelawadi, Ghoddod Road, Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Vinod Goyal – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr 01.11.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 17.11.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14 Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat(In Short “The Ao”) Dated 14.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act,1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

section 50C are deeming provisions and same were applicable only in this situation where a capital asset being a land or building or both is transferred. Therefore, we hold that the Lower Authorities were not justified in taxing short term capital gain

VISHNUBHAI CHELABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Pr.C.I.T.,Surat-1, F-19, Divya Jyoti Apartment, Surat. Vs. Samul Dairy Road, Alkapuri, Surat-395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adipp 4007 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 50C for computing correct capital gain. The ld. Pr.CIT also worked out the capital gain in his show cause

PANKAJBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.589/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Pankajbhai Hathibhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 112, Sangath Mall 1, Ward-6(3), Surat Vs. Opp. Govt. Engineering College, Motera, Ahmedabad-380005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpp 0099 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

capital gain by invoking section 50C. This issue already has been decided by me in appeal no. CIT(A)Surat

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

50C of the act on the basis of valuation officer report, the assessing officer determined long term capital gain after reducing Rs. 67,58,003/-which the assessee has already disclosed as long term capital gain. On the analysis of the provisions of section

DARSHINI AMIT SHARMA,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 50C is. In terms of this provision, if the property is sold\nbelow the stamp duty valuation rate, which is often called circle rate, this stamp\nduty valuation report is assumed as sale consideration for the property in\nquestion, and, accordingly, capital gains

SHRI DHANJIBHAI N. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2155/Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Dhanjibhai N. Patel V. Deputy Commissioner Of Nanavaty& Associates A/18, Income-Tax, Circle -3, Surat 3Rd Floor Narayan Chambers Ashram Road 380009 Pan: Aezpp 9747 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. P. Nanavaty, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 12.10.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2018 आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated03.06.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 3,77,142 Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Cit (A). 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Cit (A) Has Failed To Appreciate The On The Basis Of Return Filed U/S.147 Of The Act , There Is No Variation In The Returned Income & Assessed Income , Hence, Penalty Based On Return Filed U/S.147 Cannot Be Levied. Further, The Partners In Survey Under Section 133A, Has Admitted Capital Gains On The Ground & The Plea Of Treating Capital Gains In Order

capital gain was offered as per provision of section 50C of the Act. The assessee has not shown capital gains

KETAN LALITBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains under section 50C of the Act. 3. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities

ANILBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, these three appeals (ITA 1059 & 1060 & 1061/Srt/2025 for\nAY 2012-13) of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain, based on the facts and legal provisions of the case.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned Assessing Officer has also made an error in invoking section 50C

SHRI LALJIBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 50C of the Act for the alleged deemed Capital Gain, without appreciating the crucial and relevant evidences furnished to establish

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 50C of the Act for the alleged deemed Capital Gain, without appreciating the crucial and relevant evidences furnished to establish

SHRI SHAILESHBHAI V. MANGUKIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

capital gain instead of business income by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act. Hence, these are being considered

SHRI PRANAV DHANIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.152/Srt/2018: "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pranav Dhanibhai Patel, V Dcit, Central Circle-4, Surat. 2, Tirupati Society, Ajrmar Chowk, . B/H. Navyug College, Surat. [Pan: Adipp 5397 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain was offered as per provision of section 50C of the Act. In the revised return of income date

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

gain was increase on the basis of deeming fiction of Section 50C, the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed higher deduction under section 54F of the Act on proportionate basis due to increase in the figure of capital

GAMANLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value of the said piece

NITIN KUMAR GAMANLAL MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value of the said piece

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value of the said piece