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

gains.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 250", "Section 147", "Section 144", "Section 144B", "Section 69", "Section 133A", "Section 131(1A)", "Section 80T", "Section 28", "Rule 46A", "Section 250(4)", "Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963" ], "issues": "Whether profits from land transactions should be treated as business income or capital

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

69,488/- may kindly be deleted. 5. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/ or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” 3. Now, we shall take these grounds one by one. 4. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance u/s 54EC of Rs.50,00,000/- being investment in NHAI bond

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

capital gains. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) in not providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the remand report. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 250", "Section 147", "Section 144", "Section 144B", "Section 69

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

sections": [ "250", "147", "144", "144B", "69", "133A", "131(1A)", "46A", "250(4)", "28", "13" ], "issues": "Whether the profit on sale of lands should be taxed as capital gains

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

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "250", "28", "69", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the AO without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to present her case, especially after the seizure of records, and whether the land transactions constituted business income rather than capital gains

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm assessing officer’s addition of Rs.98,037/- u/s 69 of the Act without there being any ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar proof of payment of commission @ 2% of LTCG made by the assessee as per para 15 of assessment order

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 23 7. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 23. We find the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court at Ranchi in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Ors, Tax Appeal

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 23 7. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 23. We find the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court at Ranchi in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Ors, Tax Appeal

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)

69,29,421/-) made in the return. The claim is not acceptable at all, as the assessee has not made any deposit into the “Capital Gain Deposit Scheme” on or before the due date of filing the return of the income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y 2011-12. It is not understood as to how the assessee

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

Capital Gains (LTCG) on the said withdrawn amount in the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee was asked to furnish the explanation as to why the deduction so claimed u/s.54F of the Act should not be disallowed. Since, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee did not offer any explanation, therefore the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee

ANILBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, these three appeals (ITA 1059 & 1060 & 1061/Srt/2025 for\nAY 2012-13) of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 50C of the\nAct without referring the matter to the Department's Valuation Officer to\ndetermine the fair market value of the property sold.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned Assessing Officer has failed to account for the indexed cost of acquisition\nwhile calculating the income from long

PREETIBEN CHHATRASINGH CHAUHAN,SILVASSA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

69,455/- Less indexed loss of improvement Rs. 18,13,200/- Long term capital gain Rs.1,84,17,345/- From the above, it can be seen that instead of showing long term capital gain at Rs.1,84,17,345/- the assessee has offered only Rs.36,75,845/-. In view of the above, it is proposed to revise the assessment

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain added by the AO, confirmed by ld.CIT(A) is deleted. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 28. From the above judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Mohanlal Ambelal Desai (supra), it is vivid that being co-owner, the assessee is also entitled for similar treatment

DAKSHABEN AJITBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, these three appeals (ITA 1059 & 1060 & 1061/Srt/2025 for\nAY 2012-13) of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 50C of the\nAct without referring the matter to the Department's Valuation Officer to\ndetermine the fair market value of the property sold.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned Assessing Officer has failed to account for the indexed cost of acquisition\nwhile calculating the income from long

BINALBEN PINKESHBHAI NAIK,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, these three appeals (ITA 1059 & 1060 & 1061/Srt/2025 for\nAY 2012-13) of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 50C of the\nAct without referring the matter to the Department's Valuation Officer to\ndetermine the fair market value of the property sold.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned Assessing Officer has failed to account for the indexed cost of acquisition\nwhile calculating the income from long

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

capital gain. Against the sale transaction the assessee was required to invest for purchase of residential unit before one year or after two years from the date of sale of property i.e. 26.09.2012. The assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s 54 as he has received sale consideration of the flat as under and invested accordingly. Flat Nop.601 Date of receipt

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

Capital Gain schemes— came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries in the guise of share beneficiaries of accommodation entries in the guise of share beneficiaries of accommodation entries

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. DEEPESH VISHNU AGARWAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains out of sale of scrip of Kushal Ltd. nor\nthat the aforementioned stock/scrip was not a penny stock. Hence, the AO\ntreated the amount transacted of Rs.84,32,905/- as unexplained investment\nu/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Further, the AO added an amount of Rs.2,52,987/-\n(3% of Rs.84,32,905/-) on account of commission paid

MR. GURVANTLAL MAGANLAL NAIK,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-2,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gunvantlal Maganlal Naik, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, C/O. Bipinbhai M. Naik, Navsari. Near Aahirwad, Nr. Cricket Ground, At. Chhapra, Navsari – 396445. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apipn3403R

section 143(1) of the Act, accepting returned income. Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny, therefore statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.09.2014, which was duly served upon the Assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued. In response to the above notice and questionnaire, the assessee submitted required details