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

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

1 states that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 16,84,349 on account of capital gains under 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(1) exceeds fair market value of the property then only the AO may refer the valuation of capital asset to DVO. In the present case, the assessee has never made such claim before the AO Therefore; the AO was not required to refer to valuation. In view of this the CIT (A) held that the of capital gains

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act, the assessing officer computed the long term capital gain as follows: Total area of the land 15705.859 Sq Mtr Total cost of the land Rs.1,06,35,812 Total area of land sold 5289.74 Sq Mtr Total cost of the land sold during the year Rs.35,82,234/- Total sale value received for the land

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 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 has been offered as per provision of section 50C; hence, there is no positive concealment of income. It is trite law that penalty proceedings are distinct and separate proceedings from assessment proceedings. The finding recorded in the assessment order is not conclusive for deciding the imposition of penalty. It only has a persuasive value. Any finding recorded

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’).

1. ADDITION OF Rs.3,68,289/-U/S 50-C OF THE ACT (i) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,68,289/ -u/s 50-C of the Act on transfer of right in leasehold property by not appreciating the law that the section

PARESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

capital gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors

RAMANBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

capital gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors

NEETABEN RAMANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

capital gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors

BALUBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

capital gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors

SEEMABEN PARESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

capital gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors

HEENABEN BALUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

capital gains. The ld Counsel submits before us that the DVO (Departmental Valuer) has not based his valuation on any scientific and objective basis by taking into consideration the relevant factors which have an important bearing on the valuation as on 01.04.1981. The ld Counsel further submits that the Registered Valuer (Assessee`s Valuer) had taken the various important factors

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act. The DVO has valued the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq. mtr. as against the value determined by the Government approved registered valuer who has determined the value of the property at Rs. 380/- per sq. mtr. As per the ld. CIT(A), prior to the amendment to section 55A w.e.f 01.07.2012, such

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act. The DVO has valued the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq. mtr. as against the value determined by the Government approved registered valuer who has determined the value of the property at Rs. 380/- per sq. mtr. As per the ld. CIT(A), prior to the amendment to section 55A w.e.f 01.07.2012, such