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

1). She submitted that from this explanation, it comes out that delay was for this reason that the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy available under the law because there was no dispute about quantum of income because returned income was accepted and the dispute was only regarding non granting of credit

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

1). She submitted that from this explanation, it comes out that delay was for this reason that the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy available under the law because there was no dispute about quantum of income because returned income was accepted and the dispute was only regarding non granting of credit

URMILABEN THAKORDAS SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Urmilaben Thakordas Ito Sopariwala, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil 8/743, Hanuman Char Rasta, Vs. Hospital Majuragate, Gopipura, Surat-395001. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aprps 5313 J Appellant Respondent

1. Learned officer has erred in facts as well as in law while issuing the impugned order. 2. Learned officer has violated the principle of natural justice while issuing the impugned order. 2 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute The appellant

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)

1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm AO’s addition of Rs.16,68,295/- for LTCG and Rs.16,68,295/- as STCG for sale of immovable property which is agriculture land situated at Moje Gam- Kanad, Tal- Olpad, Dist-Surat through a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2011 as against LTCG

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

1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 9,56,862/- u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of long term capital gain without considering the fact that

SHRI KANTIBHAI MAFATLAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Kantibhai Mafatlal Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.7, Bhathena-2, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat. Bhathena Ind. Soc.-2, Anjana, Surat- 395 001. [Pan: Aaopp 1528 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Divyang Shah – Ca Department By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2019 Order Per H.S. Sidhu, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Surat Dated 07.11.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:

1 3. Without prejudice to our above grounds of appeal, whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in not referring the valuation of agricultural land to DVO u/s.50C(2) of the act?” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 47 days. In response to the condonation of delay

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

1 of the paper book and the order of ld. CIT(A) against the order giving effect dated 31/05/2018 is also placed at page No. 7-8 of the paper book. On perusal of said order, 4 Ranjitlal Chhaganlal Shah Vs ITO we find that the assessee was pursuing remedy, though no such remedy was available/maintainable to the assessee

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 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] dated 22.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Assessing Officer has erred in reopening assessment by issuing notice

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

section 50C of the Act. Various notices u/s 142(1), 129 and show cause notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued but there was non-compliance to the said notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) passed order u/s 144 of the Act because assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him though he was given

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

section 50C of the Act. Various notices u/s 142(1), 129 and show cause notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued but there was non-compliance to the said notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) passed order u/s 144 of the Act because assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him though he was given

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

1. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Capital Gain amounting to Rs.36,48,100/- by invoking the provision of 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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Srt/2024

condone the delay of 5 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed her return of income for AY.2015-16. The Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO') had recorded the reason for re-opening the case of the assessee after getting prior approval from the competent authority

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