DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

disallowance of revenue expenditures claimed by the assessee on the ground that no business activity was undertaken by the assessee during the impugned assessment year. The ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned anywhere in his order with regard to the notice of enhancement ever served upon the assessee. Provisions of section 251(2) of the Act categorically says that

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 50C of the Act, 1961. The disallowance of 50C of the Act is held to be justified and the addition of Rs. 1

SMT. DIPIKABEN RAKESHBHAI SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dipikaben Rakeshbhai Sopariwala, I.T.O., 8/1593 To 1598, Hanuman Char Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Rasta, Main Road, Gopipura-395002. Surat. Pan No. Bfhps 9989 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 28/05/2018 for the Assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances

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 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat, (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 28/09/2018 for the Assessment year (AY) 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai Dcit, Circle-3(3), Aaykar Lakhankia, B/78, Hans Bhavan, Majuragate, Vs Socieety, Varachha Road, Surat-395001 Surat Pan : Aadpl3819P Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 50C and disallowance of other expenses. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer in ex parte order. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

50C of the Act is correct in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Before deciding the ITA No.541/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. issue, it would be proper to examine the scope and ambit of section 263 of the Act, the relevant part of which for the present appeal reads as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

1 the question whether a scheme is a colourable or an artificial device would have to be considered in the context of the surrounding facts. The issue whether transaction pertaining to sale of shares of a non- resident holding company which resulted in transferring the controlling interest in downstream Indian subsidiary, was a device to evade tax. In that context

SHAUKET HUSSAIN M PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shaukethussain M Patel, I.T.O., A-504, Sanjay Residency, Ward-1(3)(9), Vs. Causeway Road, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, Rander, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395009. Surat-395001. Pan No. Artpp 2101 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

50C of the Act. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee had sold the property at Rs. 1.30 crores, however, the stamp duty valuation determining the value of property was Rs. 4.17 crores. The Assessing officer disallowed 2 Shaukethussain M PatelVs ITO the long term capital gain by considering the cost of improvement and acquisition at Zero and thereby made

SHRI ROHIT T. PATEL, HUF,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(4),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rohit P. Patel (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, 2, Thakor Niwas, Near Navyug Ward-3(4), Surat. Vs College, Rander Road, Surat. [Pan : Aalhr 0456 C] Appellant Respondednt

1) That on the facts and in law the ld. CIT(A)has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,51,598/- being agriculture income treated as unexplained income. (2) That on the facts and in law the ld. CIT(A)has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,24,475/- by working out capital gain by applying

LATA PRAVIN ALBEE,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 50C of the Act and capital gain should not be recomputed on this amount of sale consideration. 4. The assessee filed her reply dated 21.11.2017. In the reply, the assessee stated that she has taken market value at FMV as per the valuation report of Assistant 3 Lata Pravin Albee valuation officer of Income Tax Department, Surat dated

MANJULABEN BABUBHAI THUMAR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2997/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.195, 01St Floor, Road No.6F, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat. Udyognagar, Udhna, Surat-394 210. [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Surat [in short “the CIT(A)”] dated 02-08-2016, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Ground No.1 is related to cost of acquisition of claim of Rs.99,44,432/- spent by the assessee in respect of capital gain

SHRI AJAY T.PATEL,HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhsr.No.

1. 2643/Ahd/2013 ITO, Ward-3(2) Ajay T. Patel (HUF) Surat. Asstt.Year 2007-08 704, Shivam Apartment Rander Road, Surat. PAN : AAIHA4404L 2. 2967/Ahd/2013 ITO, Ward-3(4) Thakorbhai L. Patel Surat. Asstt.Year 2007-08 (HUF) 2, Thakor Niwas,Nr.Navyug college, Rander Road, Surat-395009 PAN : AABHT9506M 3. 2969/Ahd/2013 ITO, Ward-3(2) Mukesh T. Patel (HUF) Surat. Asstt.Year

DHAMI BROTHERS,,SURAT vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Dhami Brothers The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Range-9, Surat 33-34, Jivandhara Society, Opp. Chowpaty, Varachha Road, Surat-395006.. Opp. New Civil Hospital, Majuragate, Surat. Pan/Gir No.Aabfd4987E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari Revenue By Ms. Anupama Singla (Sr. Dr)

1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was a partnership firm engaged in the business of Sale of Polished Diamond and Land & Building. The diamond manufacturing activities were closed by the assessee since September 2005 and only closing stock of finished diamond was being sold year after year. The land & building was converted into

ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT vs. BHARATKUMAR LALJIBHAI TEJANI, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O., Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Near Hira Baugh Circle, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai I.T.O., Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), Vs. 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Surat. Near Hira Baugh, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These cross appeals by the revenue as well as by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 20/08/2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue in its appeal

BHARATKUMAR L. TEJANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O., Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Near Hira Baugh Circle, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt Shri Bharatkumar Laljibhai I.T.O., Tejani, Ward-3(3)(1), Vs. 286, Vithal Nagar Society, Surat. Near Hira Baugh, Varacha Road, Surat-395006. Pan: Ahbpt 5143 P Appellant Respondednt

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These cross appeals by the revenue as well as by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 20/08/2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue in its appeal

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

SALIM AHMED MOHAMED SAFI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Salim Ahmed Mohamed Safi Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Khanji Street, Kanthariya, Bharuch- Bharuch, Aaykar Bhavan, Station Vs. 392015 Road, Bharuch-392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bmapp 3521 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

disallowances made by Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bharuch u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays and appeals that the Ld. A.O Ward-1(4) Bharuch has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions: 1. Addition of Rs.23,92,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain

DIPAK CHHAGANLAL NAIK L/H AMITABEN DIPAK NAIK,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1118/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dipak Chhaganlal Naik Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ L/H Amitaben Dipak Naik Surat, Room No. 627, Aaykar Vs. 44, China Gate-2, B/Hgayatri Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Mandir, Althan S.O, Althan, 001 Surat- 395 017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhn 5872 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

disallowance made by the assessment unit for Rs.1,10,000/- overlooking the fact that deduction u/s 80C and 80TTA are statutorily available to the appellant.” 3. Vide application dated 19.03.2025 the assessee raised the additional ground, which are as follows: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in not holding that notice u/s.148 issued on 30.06.2021/27.07.2022 is barred