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

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

reassessment. Since, assessee's share in the property is only\n12.5% and after allowing deduction of cost of acquisition, the income does not\nexceed basis exemption limit, therefore, there is no escapement of income. The\nLd. AR contended that the assessee is an ordinary person who is not well\nconversant with income tax matters, therefore, assessee could not comply with

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

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

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

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in 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