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

section 50C of the | T Act as 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

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

50C which\nstipulates that the fair market value (FMV) as valued by the stamp valuation\nauthority (SVA) should be taken for the purpose of section 48 of the Act.\nAccordingly, sale consideration in case of assessee for purpose of calculation of\nLTCG was taken at Rs.11,76,020/-. In absence of any submission furnished by the\nassessee viz., purchase deed

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

50C(3) of the Act. The addition should be deleted. IV. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the re-opening of assessment us . 147 of the Act when reference to DVO was made by CIT(A), Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction for re-assessment. The re-opening be held as null & void

JHONSON ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

reassessment. The AO also issued show cause notice on 17.02.2015 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why stamp value of Rs.4.6 Crores be not treated as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain and further addition of Rs.2.6 Crore should not be made as per the provision of section 50C

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)

50C of the Act cannot involve for transaction of agriculture land. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to agree with the views of the AO that deduction u/s 54EC at Rs.29,60,000/- w.r.t. investment in NHAI Bonds was not allowable as it was allotted on 31.05.2012 i.e. beyond 6 months period from

SUKHABHAI DAYALBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 50C of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The matter then went to the ITAT, which restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer with instructions to give the assessee a proper opportunity to present his case. During reassessment

DINESHBHAI MULACHANDABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Dineshbhai Mulachandabhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ Patel Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Patidar Faliyu, Bhestan Gam, Gate, Surat-395 001 Choryasi, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bispp 4863 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

50C of the Act were attracted. The case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 was re-opened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21.04.2021. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by AO on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

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

50C of the Income-tax Act. Maheboob Abbas Shaikh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.30,33,233/- on a/c of Capital Gain.” 3. The details relating to the issuance

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 of Rs.29,40,658/ for long term capital gain of Rs.29,40,658/- and secondly and secondly, addition u/s 50C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,36,213/ the Act amounting