BHARGAV BHARATBHAI PANDYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assesse filed detailed written submission on both the additions. On the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, the assessee stated that

HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

50C although the Assessing Officer has not made any reference of deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) in the assessment order means in a way the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted that Section 68

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

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 17/08/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following

DHIRUBHAI BAVABHAI GEVARIA ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Dhirubhai Bavabhai Gevaria Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kamalpark Society, Jalalpore Navsari, Income Tax Office, Room बनाम Road, Navsari-396 445 No.207, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Vs [Pan : Asjpg 2040 H] Charpool, Navsari-396 445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68,000/- by invoking the provisions of Section 50C. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C

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)

section 50C of the Act, the assessing officer computed the long term capital gain as follows: Total area of the land 15705.859 Sq Mtr Total cost of the land Rs.1,06,35,812 Total area of land sold 5289.74 Sq Mtr Total cost of the land sold during the year Rs.35,82,234/- Total sale value received

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

50C without giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of giving deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition. acquisition. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by It is therefore prayed that above addition made by It is therefore prayed that above addition

HARIVADANBHAI MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 50C of the Act, 1961. The disallowance of 50C of the Act is held to be justified and the addition of Rs. 1,17,90,250/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain, in the hands of the assessee is hereby sustained and ground raised by appellant is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of NFAC/Ld

SHRI ROHIT T. PATEL, HUF,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(4),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rohit P. Patel (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, 2, Thakor Niwas, Near Navyug Ward-3(4), Surat. Vs College, Rander Road, Surat. [Pan : Aalhr 0456 C] Appellant Respondednt

section 50C of the Act. Further facts of the case are discussed under the respective grounds of appeals as under. 3. First ground of appeal. In the first ground of appeal, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, was not pressed during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

SHRI AJAY T.PATEL,HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2),, SURAT

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhsr.No.

section 50C of the Act. Further facts of the case are discussed under the respective grounds of appeals as under. 3. First ground of appeal. In the first ground of appeal, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act, was not pressed during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 18.12.2018. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm AO’s addition of Rs.16,68,295/- for LTCG and Rs.16,68

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

section 50C of the Act. Various notices u/s 142(1), 129 and show cause notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued but there was non-compliance to the said notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) passed order u/s 144 of the Act because assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him though he was given

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

section 50C of the Act. Various notices u/s 142(1), 129 and show cause notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued but there was non-compliance to the said notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) passed order u/s 144 of the Act because assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him though he was given

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

50C(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that all details were given to AO, who has duly examined the same and on being satisfied, no addition was made by him. ITA No.541/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Hence, his order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 3.2 The PCIT considered the reply but noticed

HARSHADRAY MANIBHAI VASHI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.390/Srt/2017 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Harshadray Manibhai Vashi Income Tax Officer, At: Nadod, Maroli Bazar, Vs. Ward-2, Navsari, Palak Arcade, 3Rd Jalalpore, Navsari-396436 Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Shantinagar,Tithal Road, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akjpv 1648 J अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""यथ" /Respondent

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 & thereby erred in taxing Rs.33,77,480/- as income from long term capital gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act. 390/SRT/2017 AY 12-13 Harshadray M. Vashi. 3. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act may kindly be quashed

SHRI NATWAR R BHARDWAJ,,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.1718/Ahd/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Natwar R Bhardwaj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Aaykar 310, Chandanvan Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Apartment, B/S Children Surat Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat Pan No. Afvpb 0248 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 23.03.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj has erred