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. The assessee Johnson Electric

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

ANIS AHMED MIYA MOHAMMED KAPADIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1397/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2008-09 Anis Ahmed Miya Mohammed Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kapadia, Ward-3(3)(1), 11/900, Sindhiwad,Chowk Bazar, Surat. Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Adtpk 8547N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.N. Vepari, C.A ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. R.Kavitha, Sr. D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2018 आदेश/Order Perc.M.Garg: This Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.03.2016 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09 Passed In The First Appeal No.Cas/3/Trfd/V/118/2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment U/S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Consequently Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act By Adjudicating The Following Grounds:

section 50C and for substituting the value as per Stamp Valuation Authorities which is only an estimate. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have referred the matter for valuation u/s. 50C(2) of the Act. 3. We have heard the arguments of the both sides, and carefully perused the relevant material

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

u/s. 143(3) without any failure on the part of appellant. The re-opening be held as time barred. II. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of Assessing Officer without appreciating the law that reference to DVO was made after completion of assessment proceedings. The re-opening should be held

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

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

147 of the Income 1961 (in 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

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;

u/s 50C amounting to Rs. 1,61,30,431/- without appreciating the facts that during that period there was only one purchase and one sale of land and the AO has rightly treated the land transaction liable for capital gain. (2) O n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld

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

U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act raising demand of Rs. 3,94,990/-. 2. .The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the AO which itself was erroneous in the first place. 3. .The learned CIT(A) failed to take into consideration the additional ground

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

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. Sukhabhai Dayalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2012-13 - 2– 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before