INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT vs. JAYSINH GULABSINH BODANA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Surat. 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Cross Objection No. 17/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of An Ita No.410/Srt/2019] Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Surat. Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/06/2022 15/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Capital gains' under the Act.” ITA 410/SRT/2019 & CO.17/SRT/2021/AY.2015-16 Jaysinh Gulabsinh Bodana 18. We note that provisions section 55(2)(b) refers

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain under the provision of section 45(2) r.w.s. 2(47) and section 55(2)(b)(i) of the act. Therefore

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. GEMALSINGH MOHANSINGH SOLANKI, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.447/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Gemalsinh Mohansinh Solanki Tax, Circle-2(3), Room No. 612, 6Th (Huf), 1, Chandramani Society, Vs. Opp. Madhi Ni Khamni, Bhatar Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr.Majura Road, Surat-395001 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aachg 5158 D (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 54F was claimed. The case was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) for both A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and the deductions u/s 54F as claimed was allowed as under: ITA No.447/SRT/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Gemalsinh M Solanki (HUF) Capital Investment in deduction u/s 54F gains residential unit allowed

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

55,102/- and worked out short term capital gain at Rs. 45,86,102/- and added to the total income. 5 Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO 5. The assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons of reopening, recorded that assessee sold immovable property at village-Lajpur, Distt. -Surat for a sale consideration

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

capital gains of Rs.12,19,328 as business income. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that facts are identical as in assessment year 1994-95. Therefore, our findings as given in A.Y. 1994-95 would mutatis mutandis apply to this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is covered by Ground

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat

MADHUBEN DILIPBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55 in a case where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before 1st April, 1981, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981 as the cost of the asset. In such a case ITA No. 544-551/SRT/2018 Sh. Jigneshkumar S. Modi HUF, Surat