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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains has been determined at Rs 10,92,200 which has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the contention of the AO that the amended provisions

SANJIVKUMAR A. SHAH,VALSAD vs. I. T. OFFICE, VALSAD CIRCLE , VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.187/Srt/2021 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sanjivkumar A Shah Income Tax Department, 4Th Floor, Amar Arcade, Valsad Circle, Valsad Vs Halar Road, Valsad-396001 -396001 Pan : Acpps 0794 L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

433/- comprising dividend and interest from tax free bonds and long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer also noted that opening and closing investment, which yielded exempt income, was of Rs.4.922 crores and Rs.6.506 crores respectively. The assessee was asked to furnish the working of suo motu disallowances as per Section

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

capital gain is disallowable. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in holding that the PF & ESI amounting to Rs.43,433/- (Rs. 42,193/- + 1,240/-) on account of employee contribution is disallowable under Explanation of sec 36(1)(va). 5. On the facts

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

433/-. The information received from the DDIT(lnv.), Gurgaon dated 09.09.2013 revealed that M/s. PACL Ltd. (PACL India Ltd.),New Delhi has claimed fictitious land development Assessment Years.2011-12 Bharatkumar Tulsibhai Patel expenditure through the so-called contractors and out of which, the assessee is one of them. On the basis of this information, the AO had recorded the statement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NA vs. ARI, NAVSARIVS.SHRI JAGDISH GANDABHAI SHAH,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.04/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3, Vs. Shri Jagdish Gandabhai Shah, Navsari. Besides Avkar Complex, Nr. Station, Maroli Bazar, Navsari-396436. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apips0087A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Cross Objection No.09/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.04/Srt/2019] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shri Jagdish Gandabhai Shah, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Besides Avkar Complex, Nr. Station, Navsari. Maroli Bazar, Navsari-396436. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apips0087A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain for taxation and has also violated provisions of 50C of the IT Act. (b) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,05,900/- without appreciating the facts of case that the rule 46A of the IT Rule has not been followed