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.”

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 50C

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

Section 50C of the Act create a legal fiction whereby apparent consideration is substituted by valuation by Stamp Valuation Authority and capital gain is to be calculated accordingly as per value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The Assessing Officer on the basis of aforesaid observation, noted that the assessee had purchased land on 01/06/2007 and sold on 26/04/2010 within

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 :

capital gains of Rs. 46,76,143 by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act without referring or directing to Ld. AO to refer the matter to DVO for valuation under section 50C (2

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

2. Ground no. 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C, thus, on\na conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account\nof understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section\n50C(2

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’).

2(14)(a) of the Act the nature Shri Prakashchandra Goyal (L/h of Late Kapil Prakashchandra Goyal) Vs. ITO, Ward -1(3)(4)/ITA Page 3 of 6 No.29/Ahd/2017/SRT/AY.2013-14 of the lease hold rights granted to the assessee under the lease deed will have to be examined. The CIT(A), therefore placing reliance in the case of Traders and Minors

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

2), the AO made an addition of Rs. 20130880/- u/s 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

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

2 Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel Vs Pr.CIT consideration of Rs. 32.40 lacs, however, the Stamp Valuation Authority assessed the market value of land at Rs. 1.35 crores which resulted into under reporting of sale consideration of Rs. 1.03 crore, and provisions of Section 50C of the Act is attracted, therefore, the case was reopened as per provisions of Section

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)

50C(2) is “MAY”. This means it is not mandatory for the assessing officer to refer every case for valuation. The next issue is can we substitute " May' with “Shall". Let us examine the words "May" and "Shall" used in different sections of the Act. The relevant portions of some such sections where word “May" is used are reproduced herein

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 arising from sale of plot. If assessee’s ground no 2 is allowed then assessee would be benefitted if deduction u/s 54EC of Rs.50,00,000 is allowed against sale of land. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

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

2 of 4 to avoid litigation capital gains on sale of agricultural land which was exempt as such agricultural land are not capital asset and the assessee has also acquired another agricultural land within one year of sale of original agricultural land, the assessee shall be entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. The CIT (A) merely noted

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

2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act" ], "issues": "Whether the transfer of the immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains tax, occurred in AY 2012-13 or AY 2013-14, and consequently, whether 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

2). The Assessing Officer failed to follow the direction of ld. CIT(A) and erroneously computed long term capital gain at Rs. 1.15 crore. The fact is that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) made addition of capital gain of Rs. 96.81 lacs by invoking provisions of Section 50C

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

2). The Assessing Officer failed to follow the direction of ld. CIT(A) and erroneously computed long term capital gain at Rs. 1.15 crore. The fact is that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) made addition of capital gain of Rs. 96.81 lacs by invoking provisions of Section 50C

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

2 to 4 are interconnected and are related to assessing the income 5. from sale of plots as income from capital gains instead of business income and making addition of Rs.6,84,138 as short-term capital gain instead of business income by invoking provisions of section 50C

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C(2) of the Act. The DVO, Surat has furnished his valuation report of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq. mtr and as on 18.02.2012 at Rs. 2,011/- per sq.mtr. for sale of land admeasuring 8,397/- sq.mtrs vide his report dated 29.01.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively. 5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C(2) of the Act. The DVO, Surat has furnished his valuation report of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq. mtr and as on 18.02.2012 at Rs. 2,011/- per sq.mtr. for sale of land admeasuring 8,397/- sq.mtrs vide his report dated 29.01.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively. 5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C(2) of the Act. The DVO, Surat has furnished his valuation report of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq. mtr and as on 18.02.2012 at Rs. 2,011/- per sq.mtr. for sale of land admeasuring 8,397/- sq.mtrs vide his report dated 29.01.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively. 5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C(2) of the Act. The DVO, Surat has furnished his valuation report of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq. mtr and as on 18.02.2012 at Rs. 2,011/- per sq.mtr. for sale of land admeasuring 8,397/- sq.mtrs vide his report dated 29.01.2016 and 24.02.2016 respectively. 5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before