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

condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee/applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 20/09/2017 was served upon the assessee on 27/10/2017 and as such, the time limit for filing appeal was up to 25/12/2017. After the order of ld. CIT(A), the order giving effect and demand notice under Section

KIRANBEN YOGESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-2 (2)(2), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt.Kiranben Yogeshbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Room No.625, 6Th At & Post: Sosak, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Sura-394540. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0342K (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), Post Orma, Taluka Olpad, Dist: Surat. Surat-394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/ 08/2022

condone the delay and admit both the appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication on merits. 8. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

MANJULABEN KIRITBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD - 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt.Kiranben Yogeshbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Room No.625, 6Th At & Post: Sosak, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Sura-394540. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0342K (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), Post Orma, Taluka Olpad, Dist: Surat. Surat-394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/ 08/2022

condone the delay and admit both the appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication on merits. 8. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

50C", "Section 144", "Section 147", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 274", "Section 271F", "Section 55A", "Section 2(14)", "Section 45"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of PAN mismatch without adjudicating on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

RUPAL DEVANG NAIK ,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the 65-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it unintentional. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "144", "50C

VIJAY NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vijay Naginbhai Patel, I.T.O., 52, Hari Har Society, Katargam Main Ward 3(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395004. Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3832 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 50C of the Act. It was also noted that the assessee kept 25% share from the said land as a purchaser. The Assessing officer calculated the assessee’s 25% share as of Rs. 9,56,862/-. The assessee filed his reply and stated that the assessee has sold 75% of the land and 25% is kept for himself

PRAMODBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.622/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Pramodbhai Balubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, D-204, Capital Status, Karan Park Ward- 3(1)(3), Road, Adajan, Surat – 395005. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adppp8613C (Assessee) (Respondent)

50C of the Act cannot involve for transaction of agriculture land. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to agree with the views of the AO that deduction u/s 54EC at Rs.29,60,000/- w.r.t. investment in NHAI Bonds was not allowable as it was allotted on 31.05.2012 i.e. beyond 6 months period from

SHRI NATWAR R BHARDWAJ,,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.1718/Ahd/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Natwar R Bhardwaj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Aaykar 310, Chandanvan Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Apartment, B/S Children Surat Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat Pan No. Afvpb 0248 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 23.03.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj has erred

RANJITLAL CHHAGANLAL SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the case. 9. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has sold plot of land out of revenue survey No. 415, C.S. No. 2930 to 2939 and 2941 to 2967 admeasuring 1292 sq. meters at Desra

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)

condone the delay of 15 days in the assessee’s appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Succinct facts qua the issue are that assessee before us is an individual. The four co-owners had sold immovable properties at Rs.3,14,17,500/- in which assessee’s share is shown at Rs.62,83,500/-. On going through the sale

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No. 530/SRT/2024 (AY.2012-13): 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed his return of income for AY.2012-13 on 28.03.2013, declaring total income at Rs.3,29,780/-. The assessee had shown net agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessee with other five co-owners had sold immovable

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No. 530/SRT/2024 (AY.2012-13): 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed his return of income for AY.2012-13 on 28.03.2013, declaring total income at Rs.3,29,780/-. The assessee had shown net agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessee with other five co-owners had sold immovable

LATE CHIMANLAL JERAMBHAI BHAGAT LEGAL HEIR MINAXI RAKESHBHAI KAHAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, VAPI

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.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act without considering the actual cost of acquisition, conversion and development cost. ITA No.45/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Lt. Chimanlal J Bhagat 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of unexplained cash deposited in bank account of Rs.6,32,000/-. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts

HETALKUMAR CHANDRAKANTBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Chandrakantbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, A-371/3, Sundervan Raw House, Nr. Ward – 1(3)(7), Subhash Garden, Jahangirabad, Surat Bhesan, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkrpp5151R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.1340/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Hetalkumar Chhandrakantbhai Patel 7. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY.2012-13 and the assessee was identified as a non-filler in the Non-filler Monitoring System (NMS). From the information available in ITS, the Assessing Officer

BHAVANABEN PRAVINCHANDRABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavnaben Pravinchandrabhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Patel Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, 303, Vs. 16D/183/6 Shiv Shaki Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Anavil Opp. Rupli Chinema, Ram Business Centre, Adajan, Surat- Nagar, Rander Road, Surat-395 395 007 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bgfpp 0968 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 26.05.2023 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

50C although the Assessing Officer has not made any reference of deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) in the assessment order means in a way the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted that Section 68 or Section 69 is not invokable because the deeming provisions of Section 68/69 and Section 56(2)(vii)(c) are mutually exclusive. The Department

MAHEBOOB ABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year