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

KETAN LALITBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

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

3) of the Act. On verification of the case records, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has sold an ancestral immovable property admeasuring 25900 square meters, situated at Block No. 54, R.S. No. 82 and 92 at Antholi, Tal – Palsana, Dist. Surat, on 26.03.2013, along with other five co-sellers for a sale consideration

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

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

3) of the Act. On verification of the case records, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has sold an ancestral immovable property admeasuring 25900 square meters, situated at Block No. 54, R.S. No. 82 and 92 at Antholi, Tal – Palsana, Dist. Surat, on 26.03.2013, along with other five co-sellers for a sale consideration

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

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

3) of the Act. On verification of the case records, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has sold an ancestral immovable property admeasuring 25900 square meters, situated at Block No. 54, R.S. No. 82 and 92 at Antholi, Tal – Palsana, Dist. Surat, on 26.03.2013, along with other five co-sellers for a sale consideration

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

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

3) of the Act. On verification of the case records, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has sold an ancestral immovable property admeasuring 25900 square meters, situated at Block No. 54, R.S. No. 82 and 92 at Antholi, Tal – Palsana, Dist. Surat, on 26.03.2013, along with other five co-sellers for a sale consideration

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

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

3) of the Act. On verification of the case records, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has sold an ancestral immovable property admeasuring 25900 square meters, situated at Block No. 54, R.S. No. 82 and 92 at Antholi, Tal – Palsana, Dist. Surat, on 26.03.2013, along with other five co-sellers for a sale consideration

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

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

3) of the Act. On verification of the case records, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee has sold an ancestral immovable property admeasuring 25900 square meters, situated at Block No. 54, R.S. No. 82 and 92 at Antholi, Tal – Palsana, Dist. Surat, on 26.03.2013, along with other five co-sellers for a sale consideration

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)

3. At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.5 raised by him, therefore, we dismiss Ground No.5 as “not pressed” by the assessee. 4. Now we shall take assessee’s grounds one-by-one. Ground No.1 relates to sale consideration as per provision of Section 50C

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

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

3. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee reads as under:- “2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the action of the ld. AO to adopt the value of the land at Rs.2,01,00,000/- adopted by the Stamp Authorities treating the land as Non-agriculture though

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)

3-2011 and notarized Bahendhari Karar dated 4-6-2011 before the State Government Authorities. These documents vest with the AO and not disputed. On 2-7-2011, the assessee with the others entered into the MoU (paper book page No.29 to 34) to undertake business on the land that they have been holding since 19 years, (clearly spelling their

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