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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and\nvery thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between the\nstated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of\nadjustments contemplated in the computation of 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

50C is attracted. We find that Assessing Officer made reference for DVO for valuation of assets on the date of transfer however, report of DVO was not received, the Assessing Officer brought the surplus earn to taxation under the head “short term capital gains”. The Ld.CIT(A) on filing 15 Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO detailed written submission, though called

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

1,35,47,000/- (Rs. 1.35 crore). On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons under Section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 to the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that after considering the reply of assessee, he accepted the returned income in the assessment order dated 16/03/2022. Assessment order dated 16/03/2022

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(2) of the act and determined the long term capital gain. The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under Section 271(1

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)

50C(1) of the Act clearly states that where value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received, the consideration so received for the purpose of Section 48, will be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Therefore, we note that the difference between value adopted ITA No.589/SRT/2019 A.Y. 11-12 Pankajbhai

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the ITO, Ward 3(3)(2), Surat (for sake of brevity “The AO”) invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act for the alleged deemed Capital Gain

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the ITO, Ward 3(3)(2), Surat (for sake of brevity “The AO”) invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act for the alleged deemed Capital Gain

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

1), Surat\nDindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210\nस्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AYSPD 0711F\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA No. 1061/SRT/2024\n(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13)\nBinalben Pinkeshbhai Naik\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer, Ward -1,\n132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi\nNavsari\nNavsari - 396445\nस्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFTPN 6207 L\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAppellant

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

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition towards long-term capital gain by sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹ 27,34,500/- as per report of departmental valuation officer as against addition

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 50C of the Act. The AO\nissued show cause notice on 02.03.2022, which is at page 3 to 4 of the\nassessment order. The AO found that the assessee had sold immovable\nproperty (land) along with four co-owners. The assessee has failed to disclose\nthe long-term capital gain (LTCG) income and has not offered any income

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

Section 50C and 54D(1) which specifically provides that capital gains from, transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of capital

VASUBEN NATWERLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, OLD WARD-1(3)(9) NEW WARD- 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical\npurpose and ground No

1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to uphold AO's\ndisallowance u/s 54 of the Act claimed by the appellant at Rs.2,14,454/-.\n2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to direct the AO to allow\na cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 at Rs.25

DAKSHABEN AJITBHAI 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

1), Surat\nस्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AYSPD 0711F\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA No. 1061/SRT/2024\n(निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13)\nBinalben Pinkeshbhai Naik\nVs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1,\n132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi\nNavsari\nNavsari - 396445\nस्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFTPN 6207 L\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by\nRespondent by\nDate

BHANUBEN RAMANBHAI SURATI(ALIAS PATEL) L/H OF LATE RAMANBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI

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

50C of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961.\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the\naction of Assessing Office in making addition to the income of assessee under\nthe head of \"capital gains\" during AY 2013-14 although the land

RUPAL DEVANG NAIK ,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical\npurposes

1) of the Act and show\ncause notices were issued; however, no reply was received from the assessee.\nThe Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO') invoked the provision of section 50C which\nstipulates that the fair market value (FMV) as valued by the stamp valuation\nauthority (SVA) should be taken for the purpose of section 48 of the Act.\nAccordingly, sale

SHRI MAHESHBHAI M.PANDYA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI

In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.388/Srt/2018 (Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Maheshbhai M Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 9, Dipkiran Co-Op. Hsc, Ward-6, Vapi, Vs Society, Nr.N.H.-8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Pan No. Afupp 6452 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Capital Gains (LTCG for short) while filing original return of income. The assessee has referred the provision of Section 148 and submitted that on going through the proviso of Section 148, it became clear that before making assessment under section 147, the Assessing Officer has issued notice in requiring the assessee to file his return of income and any such

BINALBEN PINKESHBHAI NAIK,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

1), Surat\n87, Brahman Faliyu,\nDindoli, Choryasi. Surat – 394 210\nस्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AYSPD 0711F\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\n\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA No. 1061/SRT/2024\n(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2012-13)\nBinalben Pinkeshbhai Naik\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer, Ward -1,\nNavsari\n132/2 Zaveri Faliya, Kachhori Gandevi\nNavsari - 396445\nस्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFTPN 6207 L\n(Appellant

JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Ito Ward-2(3)(2), 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. Surat-395001. Pan No. Bczpp 8713 R Appellant Respondent

1,51,65,000/-under section 50C of the | T Act as long er section 50C of the | T Act as long term capital gain