DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

term capital gain on sale of shares of Devika Proteins Limited to the tune of Rs. 2,10,474/- and that the amount was claimed as exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

account of Long Term Capital Gain treated as unexplained cash credit was justified, and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid."}}

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

long-term capital gains (LTCG in short) were disallowed by the lower authorities in case of Damodar Jajoo and Jasodadevi Raja ram Jajoo, on first appeal, the additions/ disallowances were upheld, however on further appeal before this Tribunal, those assessee was allowed full relief vide order dated 09.12.2022 in ITA No. 183 to 185/Srt/2022. Against the decision of this Tribunal

DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI KACHCHADIA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

reassessment, the Assessing Officer find that the assessee has purchased the said land on 01/07/2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,42,000/-. Further, as clause (3) of page No. 12 of purchase deed shows that the land situated within the City limit. On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer was of the view that

REKHABEN JITENDRAKUMAR JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2013-14 Rekhaben Jitendrakumar Jain, The Pr.Commissioner Of 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Vs Income Tax-1 Adajan. Surat. Pan : Adypj 6066 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca : Shri Ashish Pophara, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg

reassessment order was passed on 23.3.2022 by the AO, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.9,03,830/-. The ld.Pr.CIT noted that assesses had traded in the scrip INDINFO with the trade value of Rs.1,08,44,623/- and claimed exempted LTCG of Rs.96,42,734/- from share trading and the same was allowed by the department

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

Long-Term Capital Gain schemes Term Capital Gain schemes— came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries in the guise of share beneficiaries of accommodation entries in the guise of share

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

long term capital gain was based on detailed enquiry of Investigation Wing and the assessee has accepted the addition, thus he satisfied that the levy of penalty by Assessing Officer was justified. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

long-term capital gain is being brought to tax by way of protective assessment. Secondly, there is no substantive IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. assessment already made treating the capital gain as short term capital gain. Therefore, there can be no protective assessment. Thirdly, there has been a demand (without

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 1,06,85,774/-based on the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,22,92,546/- and claim bogus exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. vi. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT vs. MAHESHCHAND G. PATEL (HUF), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Long Term capital Gain without appreciating the fat that the AO has brought on records various material evidences and analysed to prove that assessee has received on money. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the seized documents should have been considered as valid

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

long term capital gains. He dismissed the appeal of\nthe assessee.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the\nTribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that mere fact of sale of\nimmovable property of Rs.94,08,150/- cannot be the ground for reopening the\ncase of assessee for reassessment

JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Ito Ward-2(3)(2), 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. Surat-395001. Pan No. Bczpp 8713 R Appellant Respondent

long term capital gain without considering the facts submitted term capital gain without considering the facts submitted term capital gain without considering the facts submitted by assessee. by assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as On the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER 331, MAJURA GATE SURAT vs. SHARDABEN GORDHANBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

long term capital gains on account of sale of\nthe share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny stock and without\nappreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the\ncompany were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company.\n(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT vs. HITESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

long-term capital gains from trading penny stocks, which the CIT(A) deleted. The revenue contested these deletions.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16, after April 1, 2021, were time-barred and invalid based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The reassessment

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

reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 wherein two additions wherein two additions were made by the Assessing Officer, were made by the Assessing Officer, firstly, for long term capital gain

KAMINIBEN GEMALSINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Kaminiben Gemalshinh Thakor, Ito Ward 1(3)(7), B-11, Sun Light Complex, B/H Room No. 306, Income Tax Office, Bhulka Bhavan, Anand Mahal Vs. Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Road,, Adajan, Surat-395009. Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aclpt 5623 P Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not declared the capital gain arising from the sale of a property, and further that the sale consideration declared in respect of another property was below the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the entire sale consideration amounting to ₹49,71,170/- as undisclosed

SHRI JAYESH THAKARHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO ,DAMAN WARD,, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.182 & 183/Srt/2019 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Jayesh Thakorbhai Patel House No.96/1, Dabhel Income Tax Officer Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman Ward, Daman Daman-396210 Jivanji Hotel Building, Vs Pan : Avwpp 3568 M Devka Road, Kathiria, Nani Daman-396210 Shri Rajnikanta Thakorbhai Patel, House No.96/1, Dabhel Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman-396210 Pan : Amjpp 2914 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer to refer to DVO for valuation of land. 4. On the facts

SHRI RAJNIKANT THAKARBHAI PATEL, ,DAMAN vs. ITO DAMAN WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.182 & 183/Srt/2019 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Jayesh Thakorbhai Patel House No.96/1, Dabhel Income Tax Officer Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman Ward, Daman Daman-396210 Jivanji Hotel Building, Vs Pan : Avwpp 3568 M Devka Road, Kathiria, Nani Daman-396210 Shri Rajnikanta Thakorbhai Patel, House No.96/1, Dabhel Kumbhar Faliya, Dabhel, Nani Daman-396210 Pan : Amjpp 2914 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer to refer to DVO for valuation of land. 4. On the facts

NAVINBHAI RATILAL IDRIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

long term capital gain. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the leamed Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. On the facts