NEETABEN RAMANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance

RAMANBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance

HEENABEN BALUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance

PARESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance

SEEMABEN PARESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance

BALUBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

transfer, the AO has to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation of the property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection from the department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance

SHRI VIJAYBHANSINGH LALLUSINGH RAJPUT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2990/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Vijaybhaisingh Lallusingh Rajput V. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 258/10-11 Near Shiv Ward-2(3)(4), Surat. Vijay Processors, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat – 394221. [Pan:Abxpr3970L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Ramesh Kumar Malapani, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 31.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 28.09.2018 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated 24.08.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

transfer of capital asset in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has not brought on record any single instance of land or property transacted. Therefore, the AO has taxed the capital gains of Rs. 46,76,143 as per provisions of section 50C of the Act for the year under consideration. 7. Being dissatisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal

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)

50C(1) of the I.T. Act.” 27. From the above findings of ld CIT(A), it is abundantly clear that issue relating to validity of assessment made, under section 153C of the Act, was there before the ld CIT(A), however, ld CIT(A) dismissed the ground of the assessee stating that valid notice under section 153C was issued

PANKAJBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.589/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Pankajbhai Hathibhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 112, Sangath Mall 1, Ward-6(3), Surat Vs. Opp. Govt. Engineering College, Motera, Ahmedabad-380005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpp 0099 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

50C(1) of the Act clearly states that where value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received, the consideration so received for the purpose of Section 48, will be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Therefore, we note that the difference between value adopted ITA No.589/SRT/2019 A.Y. 11-12 Pankajbhai

SHRI MUKESH N. DESAI,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

1(3) Durgapur (PB-25-34) I.T.A.No. 306/Kol/2017 dated 13.07.2018 of Kolkata Tribunal wherein it was held that provision of section 50C are not applicable where the assessee has held capital asset as stock-in trade. Hence, the value adopted by stamp duty valuation authority is not to be considered for making unexplained investment. The learned counsel for the assessee

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

price of rate. The value estimated by Government Register Valuer estimated at Rs.1600/- per square meter is more reasonable. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that to avoid the further dispute, an average of value estimated by DVO as well as Government Registered Valuer may be considered for the purpose of addition u/s 50C of the Act. Before

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 of the Act is correct in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Before deciding the ITA No.541/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. issue, it would be proper to examine the scope and ambit of section 263 of the Act, the relevant part of which for the present appeal reads as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

price of land, but merely because of those steps, it cannot be held that the assessee is dealing in land estate business. The land in question was never treated as a stock-in-trade but it was treated as capital asset on which wealth-tax was paid. All the circumstances and evidences thus demonstrated the purpose of purchase of land

MANJULABEN BABUBHAI THUMAR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2997/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manjulaben Babubhai Thumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.195, 01St Floor, Road No.6F, Ward-1(2)(6), Surat. Udyognagar, Udhna, Surat-394 210. [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Surat [in short “the CIT(A)”] dated 02-08-2016, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Ground No.1 is related to cost of acquisition of claim of Rs.99,44,432/- spent by the assessee in respect of capital gain