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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

capital gain by sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹ 27,34,500/- as per report of departmental valuation officer as against addition of ₹ 65,91,837/-made by assessing officer under section 50C of Income tax Act. (2

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

gains and to allow deduction under section 54, subject to verification.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "54", "54F", "143(3)", "147", "50C", "2(14)" ], "issues": "Disallowance of claim under section 54 and determination of the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 for capital

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

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

gain which is bad in law hence require to be\ndeleted.\n4. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.3,79,59,184/- which is\nsale consideration against sale of ancestral agriculture land which is not\ncovered under the definition of \"Capital Asset\" as define under sec 2(14) of the\nAct because it is situated outside

KANCHANBEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kanchanben Maheshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 170, Tarsada Bar, Al Mandvi, Surat – Ward – 2, 394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkipp5896G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2025

50C to compute the capital gain on sale of agriculture land which is not capital asset within the meaning of section 2

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

section 48 of the Act.\nAccordingly, sale consideration in case of assessee for purpose of calculation of\nLTCG was taken at Rs.11,76,020/-. In absence of any submission furnished by the\nassessee viz., purchase deed, etc., the indexed cost of acquisition was taken as\n'Nil' and the capital gains were worked out at Rs.11,76,020/- and added

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

capital gain, nor was he justified in proposing enhancement of income regarding reduction in the cost of acquisition without putting assessee to notice in this respect. We, therefore, Diya Fabrics uphold the plea of the assessee. In this view of the matter and the addition having been deleted on merit, grievance of the Assessing Officer is rendered academic and does

HARIVADANBHAI MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 50C of the Act, 1961. The disallowance of 50C of the Act is held to be justified and the addition of Rs. 1,17,90,250/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain, in the hands of the assessee is hereby sustained and ground raised by appellant is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of NFAC/Ld

DHIRUBHAI BAVABHAI GEVARIA ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Dhirubhai Bavabhai Gevaria Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kamalpark Society, Jalalpore Navsari, Income Tax Office, Room बनाम Road, Navsari-396 445 No.207, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Vs [Pan : Asjpg 2040 H] Charpool, Navsari-396 445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

capital gain u/s 50C of the I.T. Act of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in not making reference to Departments Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of property u/s 50C(2

BHAVANABEN PRAVINCHANDRABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavnaben Pravinchandrabhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Patel Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, 303, Vs. 16D/183/6 Shiv Shaki Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Anavil Opp. Rupli Chinema, Ram Business Centre, Adajan, Surat- Nagar, Rander Road, Surat-395 395 007 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bgfpp 0968 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gain at Rs.7,79,184/- ignoring the fact that appellant land was rural agricultural land as such, it is not capital asset subject to Income tax. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm AO’s addition on account of LTCG that worked out by the AO by taking 50C value and that

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

section 50C of the | T Act as long term capital gain without considering the facts submitted term capital gain without considering the facts submitted term capital gain without considering the facts submitted by assessee. by assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case as well