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)

Section 2(14) of the Act, assessee is not liable for any tax under the head “income from capital gain”. When above land was sold, assessee received consideration of Rs.2,28,72,600 which is exactly the same as Jantri value prevailing on the date of conversion hence income from business and profession in present case is nil. The assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. SWASTIK ENTERPRISES, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Swastik Enterprises, Circle-2(3), R.S. No. 130, F.P. 36, T.P.S. 37, Vs. Surat. Behind Althan Gam, Althan, Surat. Pan No. Aakfm 1069 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 20/03/2020 for the Assessment year (AY) 2014-15. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts

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

73,16,000 – 4,63,700). On the basis of such working, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why short term capital gain should not be taxed and added to the income of assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed his written submission on 12/12/2018. The Assessing

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the amendment in section 200A with effect from 01.06.2015 cannot have retrospective effect. 8. On the other hand learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that two different time limits for filing statements under rule 31A are for Government and non Government agencies