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

2. Perusal of record shows that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 20/09/2017. However, the present appeal was filed on 30/04/2018, thus there is delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee/applicant contended that the impugned order passed

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

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

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", "142(1)", "48", "147", "50C(2

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

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at original return of income on 04.01.2014 declaring total income at Rs.7,27,040/-. Subsequently, in view of information

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

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

2 Vijay Naginbhai Patel Vs ITO Act). The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee kept 25% of share of land for himself. The Assessing Officer prepaid the summary of total sale consideration and difference under Section 50C of the Act and worked out difference of Rs. 12,75,816/-. On the basis of such working, the Assessing Officer issued

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)

2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO’s addition of Rs.33,36,590/- u/s 50C of the Act by ignoring the fact and law that the said section was not applicable in the case of assessee as the agreement to sale was executed on 19.01.2010 as per Jantri Rates prevailing in FY.2009-10

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

2 Ranjitlal Chhaganlal Shah Vs ITO 03.02.2017. On further seeking advice, the assessee was advised to file appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 03.02.2017 before the Tribunal by raising the grounds that the assessee is eligible for indexation cost of asset. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is a reasonable cause for non-filing

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

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

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

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

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without providing enough opportunities to represent the case of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without providing enough opportunities to represent the case of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing

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

2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm AO’s addition on account of LTCG that worked out by the AO by taking 50C value and that two without allowing deduction for index cost of acquisition either as on 01.04.2001 or 01/04/1981.” 3.1 Since the facts are on record, the request for modification

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