GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we direct the assessing officer to consider measurement at the rate of Rs.1,800 per sq. mt. to compute the long term capital gain. Hence, we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee. 16. In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

3 Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO therefore, provisions of Section 50C is attracted. Section 50C of the Act create a legal fiction whereby apparent consideration is substituted by valuation by Stamp Valuation Authority and capital gain

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) of the Act. “4 Additional ground 3

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

3) of Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 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

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’).

gains as per section 50C whether on facts assessee had transferred only rights in impugned land which could not be equated to land or building or both and therefore provisions of section 50C could not be applied… held yes.” 6. Per contra, the ld.Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) supported the orders of the Lower Authorities. 7. We have heard the rival

SHRI MUKESH N. DESAI,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

capital gain. Even if the contention of the assessee is accepted that section 50C is not applicable, which has been accepted by the AO, even in that case, there is strong evidence of receipt of unaccounted sale consideration in the form of unexplained cash credit in bank account for which the AO has made separate addition as discussed in Ground

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 notice and also worked out the consequential short levy of tax of Rs. 21,32,502/-. The ld. Pr.CIT, thus recorded that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3

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)

3. At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.5 raised by him, therefore, we dismiss Ground No.5 as “not pressed” by the assessee. 4. Now we shall take assessee’s grounds one-by-one. Ground No.1 relates to sale consideration as per provision of Section 50C

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

Section 50C, the assessee has not disclosed any particular in the return of income and not accepting the deeming sale 3 Vijaybhan Singh Rajput Vs ITO consideration as adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority for determining the capital gain

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

3 of 4 tax is appears to be correct. Even if this is not considered as available, even then the assessee has is eligible for deduction under section 54B of the Act. Furthermore, the long-term capital gain has been offered as per provision 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

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 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

3)(2), Surat (for sake of brevity “The AO”) invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act for the alleged deemed Capital Gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain computation, as made\nby the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief\naccordingly.\n10.\nAs we have decided the appeal on the short issue regarding the retrospective\neffect of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need\nto deal with other issues raised in the appeal before

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

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 together. Facts apropos is of these grounds are that the assessee has purchased 10 plots of 6. land at Shreeji Row House for a consideration of Rs.1,53,395/- during accounting year relevant to assessment year 2008-09. These plots

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) r/w section 147 wherein long term 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) r/w section 147 wherein long term 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) r/w section 147 wherein long term 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) r/w section 147 wherein long term 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