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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

investments, substantiated with evidence and held for a significant period, were not bogus penny stock transactions. The additions were deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "148", "68", "69C", "10(38)"], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of Long Term Capital Gain treated as unexplained

YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

investment was made in Templeton India Short Term Capital Income Retail Plan-Growth’ on 30.06.2011 for Rs.65,00,000/- and at the time of switching out from the fund i.e. on 19.11.2012, value was Rs.73,96,372/-. The assessing officer noted that switching of mutual fund from one fund to another fund is nothing but a transaction of sale

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

capital gain for your kind perusal. This amount may please be added to the total income of the assessee. The remaining amount of Rs.29,60,000/- was received as advance. A copy of purchase deed and sale deeds of the land under consideration are also enclosed.” 22. However, the assessing officer has rejected the contention of the assessee and held

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

invest in Year 2003 and had taken a calculated risk and had received a nominal gained when he sold 5000 shares out of 12000 shares in Year 2010 and that he is not party to any alleged scam or illegal trades etc. It is important to note that the inflation rate rose from 3.81% in Year

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

unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act of Rs.17,925/- (3% Rs.5,97,489) presuming it as commission paid @ 3% for arranging long term capital gain