SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

69A of Income Tax Act on account of cash deposit in Bank Account. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction of housing loan interest of Rs.2,00,000/- as per section 24 of Income

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

69A of Income Tax Act on account of cash deposit in Bank Account. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction of housing loan interest of Rs.2,00,000/- as per section 24 of Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT vs. HITESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on\naccount of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny\nstock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price\nmovement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the\ncompany?\n(ii) On the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER 331, MAJURA GATE SURAT vs. SHARDABEN GORDHANBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on\naccount of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny\nstock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price\nmovement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the\ncompany?\n(ii) On the facts

SHRI JAYESH THAKARHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO ,DAMAN WARD,, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.182 & 183/Srt/2019 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Jayesh Thakorbhai Patel House No.96/1, Dabhel Income Tax Officer Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman Ward, Daman Daman-396210 Jivanji Hotel Building, Vs Pan : Avwpp 3568 M Devka Road, Kathiria, Nani Daman-396210 Shri Rajnikanta Thakorbhai Patel, House No.96/1, Dabhel Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman-396210 Pan : Amjpp 2914 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

capital gain. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI RAJNIKANT THAKARBHAI PATEL, ,DAMAN vs. ITO DAMAN WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.182 & 183/Srt/2019 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Jayesh Thakorbhai Patel House No.96/1, Dabhel Income Tax Officer Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman Ward, Daman Daman-396210 Jivanji Hotel Building, Vs Pan : Avwpp 3568 M Devka Road, Kathiria, Nani Daman-396210 Shri Rajnikanta Thakorbhai Patel, House No.96/1, Dabhel Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman-396210 Pan : Amjpp 2914 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

capital gain. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances

BHARATSINH KISHORSINH MEDHAT,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). The Appellate Commissioner Confirmed Both The Additions, Since The Assessee Failed To Produce Substantial Details In Support Of Its Claim.

capital gain on sale of land 3) The ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the substituted ground no 2 pertaining to the prayer to adopt the average rate of Rs. 137 per Sq Meter as on 01/04/1981 as cost of acquisition of land. 4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred

SHRI DHAVAL RAJKUMAR JAIN,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.416/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Dhaval Rajkumar Jain Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, “Mahvir” Airport Ward-Daman, Hotel Vs Road, Naii Daman, Daman- Diwanji Building, 396210 Devkanand, Daman- Pan No: Aedpj 9192 B 396210 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

69A being appellant’s investment in plot no.21 and 22 of survey no 261/1 located at Keshar Industrial Estate, Village-Bhimpor, Daman Sh. Dhaval R. Jain ignoring the fact that the said plots were purchased in A.Y 2009-10 and entire investment is disclosed in books of account. 2. Ld. CIT[A], NFAC, DELHI has erred

HOTEL ROYAL GARDEN,,DAMAN AND DIU (UT) vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Royal Garden, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefh2587H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca With Jayraj M. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2023

69A,69B,69C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has also given a plethora of cases without verifying whether the facts of the case are similar to the facts of the case of the assessee. In the present case the assessee was duty-bound to come out with full particulars which it has not done. In fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. ILESH B PONKIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances

ARVINDBHAI RATILAL SHAH T L/H KOKILABEN ARVINDBHAI SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3) (6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arvindbhai Ratilal Shah, T L/H Ito Ward 2(3)(6), Kokilaben Arvindbhai Shah, Income Tax Office, Room 405, C/O Sun Gems, 203 Syndicate Vs. Anavil Business Centre, Pal- House, Gujjar Falia Haripura, Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-394270. Pan No. Actps 6533 K Appellant Respondent

capital gains on equity shares, dividend, commission income, and interest. The return so filed was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. 2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash in various bank accounts during the period of demonetisation

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

section 45(4) of the Act and taxed Rs. 12,43,18,618/- by taking the fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer as the full value of construction. This includes the value of the flats received by the assessee based on the average rate of the flats in the digital image in the name

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69A, 69B, 69C or 69D whether the income is offered by the assessee in the return of income or assessment is made by Assessing Officer under these Sections. The amendment was brought to plug the loophole of taxing the unexplained cash in demonetized currency. The argument of assessee that the amendment brought by legislation is in contradiction with

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. The assessee`s case was manually selected for scrutiny under compulsory criteria through approval of Pr. CIT-2, Surat vide his letter No. SRT/Pr. CIT-2/ITO(HQ)- 2/Scrutiny/Manual Selection/2018-19 dated 28.09.2018 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served online on 29.09.2018. Details, documents and explanations relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, HAZIRA RAOD, SURAT vs. SHARMISHTHABEN SHIVLAL PONKIA, UMRA, BHARTHANA B.O, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. SHIVLAL SHAMJIBHAI PONKIA, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BHANUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company? ii. On the facts and circumstances

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

69A of the I.\nT. Act, 1961.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making\naddition of Rs. 1,68,002/-on account of undisclosed short term capital gain.\n8. It is therefore prayed that the above

DESH BHUSHAN SINGHAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Desh Bhushan Singhal, Vs. Income Tax Officer G-12, Rittz Square, Nr. Indoor Ward-1(3)(1), Stadium, Ghod Dod Road, Surat - Surat 395 007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acips3627H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 15.07.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the appeals are as under: “(1) That on the facts