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

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

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

Section 50C is attracted. We find that Assessing Officer made reference for DVO for valuation of assets on the date of transfer however, report of DVO was not received, the Assessing Officer brought the surplus earn to taxation under the head “short term capital gains”. The Ld.CIT(A) on filing 15 Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia Vs ITO detailed written submission, though

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

section 112 of the Act, 1961 on capital gains computed u/s 50 of the Act, despite the fact that the deeming fiction u/s 50 of the Act is limited only to the mode of computation u/s 48 and 49 of the Act and does not affect the nature of the asset for the purpose of determining applicable tax rates under

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

capital gain and computed the income as per provisions of Section 48. This fact was not disputed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). However, the Assessing Officer draw inference that Sh. Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani Vs ITO & 1 Anr. full value of consideration shown by assessee under Section 48 is much less the valuation made

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

capital gain and computed the income as per provisions of Section 48. This fact was not disputed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). However, the Assessing Officer draw inference that Sh. Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani Vs ITO & 1 Anr. full value of consideration shown by assessee under Section 48 is much less the valuation made

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

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

81,214/- as LTCG. The complete details with acquisition of sales of purchase through banking channel and was sold through recognized Stock Exchange after payment of STT. The assessee sold shares much prior to splitting the shares of Global Capital Market Ltd. in ratio of 1:10 in the month of November, 2010 and is not beneficiary of any same

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

81,214/- as LTCG. The complete details with\nacquisition of sales of purchase through banking channel and was sold\nthrough recognized Stock Exchange after payment of STT. The assessee sold\nshares much prior to splitting the shares of Global Capital Market Ltd. in ratio\nof 1:10 in the month of November, 2010 and is not beneficiary of any same

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 gains arising out of the sale of the earlier house should not be taxed. Whether assessee himself constructs the house or he gets it constructed by a contractor or third party does not make any difference. The basic requirement for the purpose of relief under section 54(1) is that the assessee should invest the sale proceeds

NAROTTAMBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

sections 148 and 142(1) remained uncomplied with. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 28.02.2024. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer ultimately treated 50% of the sale consideration, amounting to Rs.42,81,300/-, as taxable capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital nature….” 5.5 In view of the above factual positions and the authoritative precedents cited supra, we are of the considered view that the AO was not correct in adding the notional exchange gain on foreign currency loan on the balance sheet date as income of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

capital nature….” 5.5 In view of the above factual positions and the authoritative precedents cited supra, we are of the considered view that the AO was not correct in adding the notional exchange gain on foreign currency loan on the balance sheet date as income of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI JETHABHAI DANABHAI VADHER, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas assessee’s

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

Section 48. Further, on perusal of sample sale deeds of these plots, the ld CIT(A) noticed that the sale deed does not state the mode of payment being cash and hence the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed the mode of payment as cash. However, it is also true that the assessee has failed to offer the resulting capital gains

SHRI KIRAN KASTURCHAND SHAH,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.282/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat 235-236, Shankheshwar Complex, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agzps1397K Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 24/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2023

81,600/- Rs, 78,71,600/- 2 07.02.2018 2,50,000/- Rs. 2,14,10,560/- Rs. 2,11,60,560/- The ld PCIT noted that during the course of Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer, vide notices u/s 142(1) of I.T. Act dated 16.12.2019 and 20.03.2020, has asked the Assessee to submit details of immovable properties purchased during

KHILAN N. PATEL (HUF),SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.429/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Khilan N. Patel (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, 6/2201, Nagarsheri, Mahidharpura, Circle – 2(3), Surat – 395003 (Gujarat) Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakhk6987L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

81,020/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Seven notices were issued and served upon the assessee along with questionnaire calling for various details. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) found that assessee derived income from capital gain thereon and income from other sources. During the year, ITA No.429/SRT/2024/AY.2016-17 Khilann N. Patel (HUF) assessee had entered into share

HARIVADANBHAI MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 50C of the Act, 1961. The disallowance of 50C of the Act is held to be justified and the addition of Rs. 1,17,90,250/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain, in the hands of the assessee is hereby sustained and ground raised by appellant is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of NFAC/Ld