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

50C(2) of the act, especially, when the appellant has claimed lesser sale proceed as compared to the value fixed by SVO. Further, Ld CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing time to file valuation report of RVO before him in first appellate proceeding.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual, filed his return

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

1,51,65,000/-under section 50C of the | T Act as long er 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the CIT(A) erred in not treating the reference to DVO u/s 55A as illegal & uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the reference to DVO as rightly made by AO as per the amended provision u/s 55A w.e.f. 01/07/2012. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in treating the registered valuer’s report as fallacious

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.”

1) and 143(2) proceeded for 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

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

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

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;

1,61,30,431/- crore made by learned assessing officer bypassing speaking order. 3. Brief facts of the case as gathered from the orders of the authorities are that the assessee is Hindu undivided family (HUF), allegedly engaged in business of contractor, filed its return of income for assessment year 2008 - 09 on 22nd September 2008, declaring total income

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

1,21,26,531/- was made by the Assessing Officer under 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

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

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