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

capital gain as considered in the order.\n2.2. Even the purchase consideration and improvement thereon was\nconsidered as NIL. This is an absurd consideration for raising an exorbitant\ndemand to make a dossier case without appreciating the facts of the case.\nCalculation of LTCG is attached in annexure of the submission.\n2.3. These additions may be deleted/corrected considering the facts

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

capital gain as considered in the order.\n2.2. Even the purchase consideration and improvement thereon was\nconsidered as NIL. This is an absurd consideration for raising an exorbitant\ndemand to make a dossier case without appreciating the facts of the case.\nCalculation of LTCG is attached in annexure of the submission.\n2.3. These additions may be deleted/corrected considering the facts

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

capital gain as considered in the order.\n2.2 Even the purchase consideration and improvement thereon was\nconsidered as NIL. This is an absurd consideration for raising an exorbitant\ndemand to make a dossier case without appreciating the facts of the case.\nCalculation of LTCG is attached in annexure of the submission.\n2.3 These additions may be deleted/corrected considering the facts

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

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR ARJANBHAI VEKARIA, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.339/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Rajeshkumar Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Arjanbhai Vekaria, Vs Surat, Room No.301, 503, Trade Centre, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Ring Road, Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 Pan No: Acopv 1228 P Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

invested huge fund of Rs. 1.00 Crore in anticipation to earn good return, but the assessee suffered losses in short span of time, so he immediately sold the scrips of such shares and that transaction carried out by the assessee is genuine and cannot be doubted. 12. I find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himani

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

unexplained for the purpose of taxation. No such cogent evidence or material has been noticed by the Investigation Directorate or by the AO and therefore, merely because the assessee was able to get good return on her investment does not mean that it is bogus transaction. Such return is in the nature of long term gain within the meaning

SMT. MUKTABEN NISHANTBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

unexplained for the purpose of taxation. No such cogent evidence or material has been noticed by the Investigation Directorate or by the AO and therefore, merely because the assessee was able to get good return on her investment does not mean that it is bogus transaction. Such return is in the nature of long term gain within the meaning

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

unexplained for the purpose of taxation. No such cogent evidence or material has been noticed by the Investigation Directorate or by the AO and therefore, merely because the assessee was able to get good return on her investment does not mean that it is bogus transaction. Such return is in the nature of long term gain within the meaning

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI, SURAT

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

gain on sale of land. (c) Ground No.3 of IT(SS) No.25/SRT/21, for A.Y. 2013-14. Addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of unaccounted investment. (d). Ground No.2 of IT(SS) No.45/SRT/21, for A.Y.2014-15, addition of Rs.1,84,28,500/- on account of unexplained investments. (e) Ground No.3 of IT(SS) No.45/SRT/21, for A.Y.2014-15, addition of Rs.50

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

investment is not doubted. Sale proceeds are received in their bank account by electronic means. 6. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer by referring the modus operandi of penny stock company and held that the assessee has sold share within 12 days and earned short term capital gain. Financial result of transaction

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 gain on sale of shares exempt u/s 10(38) , he is not required to comply with any other conditions other than what are specified in the Act. However, AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee and added Rs.9,44,74,391/- as unaccounted credits u/s.68 of the Act and Rs.64,78,080/- on account of unexplained commission

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 gain on sale of shares exempt u/s 10(38) , he is not required to comply with any other conditions other than what are specified in the Act. However, AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee and added Rs.9,44,74,391/- as unaccounted credits u/s.68 of the Act and Rs.64,78,080/- on account of unexplained commission

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. QUANT CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

gain of Rs. 6.89 crores were not counted. All these funds are discernible from the bank statement of Sandeep Tandon. Considering such fact, the investment in share capital of investment company, the ld. CIT(A) held that there is no DCIT Vs M/s Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Vs Quant Capital P Ltd case for making addition

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE , VAPI vs. M/S. QCAP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

gain of Rs. 6.89 crores were not counted. All these funds are discernible from the bank statement of Sandeep Tandon. Considering such fact, the investment in share capital of investment company, the ld. CIT(A) held that there is no DCIT Vs M/s Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Vs Quant Capital P Ltd case for making addition

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)

unexplained investment. The assessee also submitted that the addition is also beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, as the same is not based on any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search and seizure action in the case of assessee. The Assessee has not entered into any such transaction with above mentioned parties (lease

SHRI ATUL K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-3, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.267/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Atul K. Patel, V Principal Commissioner Of Income B-34, Kalpana Society-2, Rander Road, Tax-3, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura S. Adajan Patiya, Surat. Gate, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackpp 4749 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

capital gain.” (iii) The condition of the Section 54B of the I.T Act that the land in question should be used for agricultural purposes by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place has also not fulfilled in this case because

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)

unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act. 14. The Assessing Officer also held that tax on the above unaccounted income of Rs.49,99,877/- (Rs.49,01,840 + Rs.98,037) should be calculated @ 30% as per the mandate of section 115BBE, of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee carried the matter in appeal

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

unexplained investment in shares of Rs. 12,64,005/-. 2.0(b) Without prejudice to above 2.0(b) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on the facts grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. and in the circumstances