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

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)

2] herein it is held as under: “Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business loss/deductions – Allow- able as – Assessment year 1996-97 -Assessee deducted loss on sale of shares in ‘B’ Ltd. from profit on sale of fixed assets and dividend income – Assessing Officer noticed that six companies, to whom shares of ‘B’ Ltd had allegedly been

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. 1,17,90,250/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain, in the hands of the assessee is hereby sustained and ground raised by appellant is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of NFAC/Ld

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessment in the aforesaid matter was completed under section 143(3) on 23.03.2016.The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made the addition of undisclosed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG for short), deem income under section 50C and disallowance

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

Section 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

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

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

2 Lata Pravin Albee of the Act. Notice under section 148 dated 14.03.2016 was issued after recording the reasons for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 with the prior approval of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Prising) 3. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee filed her return of income

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

50C to the total income of the appellant. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-2 also erred in not allowing the appeal of the appellant on this ground with the remark that in spite of several opportunities given, the appellant has not furnished the status of the Town Planning Scheme by SUDA. 2. Further, on the facts and circumstances

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

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)

disallowing the loss of Rs.1,36,62,888/- to the assessee. On a 4 A.Y.2010-11 similar facts this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Asokkumar H. Kothari vs. ITO in ITA No.386/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 order dated 16-1-2015 deleted the addition for the reason that the name and address of the parties to whom

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.

section 50C of the Act. Further facts of the case are discussed under the respective grounds of appeals as under. 3. First ground of appeal. In the first ground of appeal, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, was not pressed during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

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

Section 50C of the Act. The assessee has failed Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar v. ITO, Ward-1(2)(6),Surat/ITA. 2997/AHD/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 5 to revise return of income as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323. Therefore, the AO computed the net long term capital gain

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

2 ITA No. 2968/AHD/2013/Rohit P Patel (HUF) (AY 2007-08) by the AO that the assessee HUF along with other three HUFs, co-owners had sold non-agricultural land during the year under consideration. However, it is found that the assessee has not shown sale consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act, therefore the case

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

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

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

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

50C for Rs.82,96,500/- being 1/3rd difference between fair market value and registered document value of agricultural land sold by the appellant wide registered sale deed number 190/2013. 4. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to confirm action of the assessment unit w.r.t. appellant’s claim of the exemption of Rs.56