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

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

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

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

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 dated

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

short “the AO”) under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 by invoking Explanation

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:

short term capital gain. Therefore, there can be no protective assessment. Thirdly, there has been a demand (without any limitation that it should not have been recovered) raised pursuant to the above assessment which also shows that the said assessment is not a protective assessment.” 14. In the present case, from the reasons recorded by the AO as reproduced hereinabove

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

short, the Act) dated 31/03/2019. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information of DDIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad wherein it was informed that the assessee was involved in trading of penny stock of scrip namely Dhvanil Chemicals Ltd. earlier known as Shreya Chemicals Ltd. During the assessment, the assessee was required to furnish the details of sale proceed

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

short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal although the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T act, 1961 is barred by limitation

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

short, ‘AO') invoked the provision of section 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

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)

short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts of the case are the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the asst. year 2015-16 declaring taxable

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

term capital gain (LTCG) on trading of penny scrip, namely, JRI Industries and\nInfrastructure Limited (in short, ‘JIIL’). The AO has mentioned that notice u/s 148\nwas issued to the assessee on 17.05.2021. Subsequently, following the directions\nof Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, dated 04.05.2022, the\nAO informed the assessee that the above notice u/s 148 shall

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

term capital gain (LTCG) on trading of penny scrip, namely, JRI Industries and\nInfrastructure Limited (in short, ‘JIIL’). The AO has mentioned that notice u/s 148\nwas issued to the assessee on 17.05.2021. Subsequently, following the directions\nof Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, dated 04.05.2022, the\nAO informed the assessee that the above notice u/s 148 shall

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

short ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 wherein two additions

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

short to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 08.01.2019 for same assessment year i.e. (AY) 2009-10, which in turn arise out separate assessment orders passed by Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman / Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax ITA Nos.182&183/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Jayesh T Patel & Sh. Rajnikant T Patel

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

short to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 08.01.2019 for same assessment year i.e. (AY) 2009-10, which in turn arise out separate assessment orders passed by Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman / Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax ITA Nos.182&183/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Jayesh T Patel & Sh. Rajnikant T Patel

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)

short referred to as "CIT(A)"), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. I.T.A No. 694//SRT/2025 Α.Υ. 2025-26 Navinbhai Ratilal Idria vs. ITO Page No 2 2. The registry has noted that there

BHARATSINH KISHORSINH MEDHAT,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). The Appellate Commissioner Confirmed Both The Additions, Since The Assessee Failed To Produce Substantial Details In Support Of Its Claim.

short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A No. 645/SRT/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Bharatsinh Kishorsinh Medhat vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee

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

short “the Act”). Consequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2016. 2.1 In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 31.07.2016 declaring a total income of ₹2,82,450/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had not declared the capital gain arising from the sale of a property