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

capital gains exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Hence, the addition made by the AO on account of sale of share of Rs.9,44,74,391 u/s 68 of the Act was deleted. He also deleted the addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs.64,78,080/- in respect of unexplained commission paid on account of above LTCG

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 Ground-1: On the facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

sections": ["147", "148", "68", "69C", "10(38)"], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain treated as unexplained

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 69C on account of commission paid @ 2% or 3% of bogus long term capital gain. In the assessee`s case

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

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

69C of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,79,99,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURA, SURAT vs. PIPODRA TEXTILE PARK LLP, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. Pipodra Textile Park Llp, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp8206B (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.27/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (A/O Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Pipodra Textile Park Llp Vs. Acit, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat– 395 002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp 8206 B (Co-Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 29.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018- 19, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assistant ITA No.795/Srt/2024 & CO 27/SRT/2024 A.Y 18-19 Pipodra Textile Park LLP Commissioner

UMESH P. MAHANSARIA (HUF),SURAT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 151/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh P. Mahansaria (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- C-501, The Legend, Vastu Gram, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, बनाम Vesu, Surat-395 007 Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Building, Vs [Pan : Aaahu 6298 L] Adajan, Surat-395 009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

capital gain (LTCG) earned from sale of listed shares on the platform of stock exchange and claimed exempted u/s 10(38) of the Rs.13,50,320/- Act, as non-genuine and arranged LTCG. The addition so made by ld. AO and sustained by ld. CIT(a) is without any lawful basis or finding in respect of transactions of appellant

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, 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)

69C of the Act purportedly incurred by the Assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the behest of the Assessee overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the Assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gains

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

gain on\nfluctuation in price/ value. Thus, the assessee earned income from referral,\ninterest income from lending of coins and from staking. DKD cons were operated\nin pseudonymous ownership without any physical address. It functioned as\nscheme with lending and escrows. All such details were found from the personal\nLaptop of assessee \"Snjay_hp_laptop_320_gb-“, which was seized

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, SURAT vs. SHRI SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross appeal of\nthe assessee is partly allowed

gain on\nfluctuation in price/ value. Thus, the assessee earned income from referral,\ninterest income from lending of coins and from staking. DKD cons were operated\nin pseudonymous ownership without any physical address. It functioned as\nscheme with lending and escrows. All such details were found from the personal\nLaptop of assessee \"Snjay_hp_laptop_320_gb\", which was seized

PRAVINABEN PRAVINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69C of the Act, which is not the subject matter of these appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range-1(3), Surat. The Additional Commissioner of Income tax (Add. CIT) while

PRAVINBHAI KESHAVBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Pravinbhai Keshavbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Adgpp 4549 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Smt. Pravinaben Pravinbhai Patel, Addl.C.I.T.,Range-1(3), A/2, Golden Park Society, Surat Vs. Opp. Prime Arcade, Aanand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Cdopp 3300 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69C of the Act, which is not the subject matter of these appeals. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271D was levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range-1(3), Surat. The Additional Commissioner of Income tax (Add. CIT) while

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

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, the AO was much

MR. RAMANLAL RAGHABHI PATEL ,DAMAN vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramanlal Raghabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Near Check Post, Dabhel, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpp2952J

69C of the Income Tax Act. The assesse was asked to explain source of such expenditure and while explaining the same it was stated by the assesse that it is out of unaccounted income. It is to be noted that even this unaccounted income was not recorded in the books of accounts and therefore even this unaccounted income is covered

DIMPAL RAJESHKUMAR PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, ground No1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2017. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- “1.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 passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable

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

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 law and policy