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

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C(2) is “MAY”. This means it is not mandatory for the assessing officer to refer every case for valuation. The next issue is can we substitute " May' with “Shall". Let us examine the words "May" and "Shall" used in different sections of the Act. The relevant portions of some such sections where word “May" is used are reproduced herein

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

ITO WARD-1(3) (6),, SURAT vs. DEVSHIBHAI JETHABHAI SHETA(HUF),, SURAT,

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee is dismissed as infractious

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1678/Ahd/2017, िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 (Hearing In Virtual Court) Ito Ward -1(3)(6), Vs Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta Room No.303, (Huf), Anavil Bussiness Centre , D-702, Mahadev Residency, Near Adajan Brts, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat -395009 Surat [Pan: Aaehd 3710 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Co. No.01/Srt/2021 In Ita No.1678/Ahd/2017 (Ay 2008-09) Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta Vs Ito Ward -1(3)(6), (Huf), Room No.303, D-702, Mahadev Residency, Anavil Bussiness Centre , Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Near Adajan Brts, Surat Surat -395009 [Pan: Aaehd 3710 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shritinish Mody Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shorte Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 19.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By Revenue & Cross Objection Therein By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, Dated 06.04.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Revenue Has Raised Ground Following Grounds Of Appeal;

reassessment and passed assessment order on 29th March 2016 and added a Capital Gain of ₹ 1.61 Crore to the total income of assessee in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147dated 29.03.2016. 6. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee filed detailed written submission, as recorded in para-5 of the impugned order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, VAPI vs. M/S. KRIMPI DISTILLERY, NANI DAMAN

In the result, appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am करअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.01To 06/Srt/2017& आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.47/Srt/2017 "तया"ेयसं./Cross Objection Nos.02To 08/Srt/2018 [A/O In It(Ss)A Nos.01 To 06/Srt/2017 & Ita No.47/Srt/2017] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Krimpi Distillery, Vapi. Plot No.34-37, Supreme Ind. Estate, Bhimpore, Nani Daman- 396210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofm6580H अपीलाथ" /Applicant ""यथ"/Respondent/"तया"ेपक/Co- Objector

reassess' to complete assessment proceedings. IT(SS)A.01-06& ITA No.47/SRT/17 CO.02-08/SRT/2018 AYs.2008-09 to 2014-15 Krimpi Distillery (vi) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

NITIN KUMAR GAMANLAL MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

VIJAYKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

GAMANLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

MADHUBEN DILIPBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

ANILKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C are attracted. 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO referred the matter to DVO, Surat on 24.11.2015 for determination

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

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