MAYUR MATHURDAS PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

section 54B of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessing officer disallowed and added the claim of Rs. 16,77,758/- under

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

disallowed. Secondly, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 54B of the Act of Rs. 30,31,390/- for purchase of four

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 54B of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption of Rs.22,54,913/-. 7. Aggrieved

BABUBHAI ARJANBHAI KANANI (HUF),SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.280/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Babubhai Arjanbhai Kanani (Huf), V The Deputy Commissioner Of B-32, Laxman Nagar Society, L.H.Rad, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat. S. Varchha, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaihb 1261 J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran K. Shah - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 05.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows. “1) The Learned Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Rejection Of Claim In Respect Of Purchase Of Agricultural Land Against The Ltcg Eligible For Deduction U/S.54B Of The Act. 2) The Appellant Reserves Right To Add, Alter & Withdraw Of Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

section 54B of the Act to the tune of Rs.27,42,500/- was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

54B. No doubt that there is no such observation about conducting such detailed inquiry, in the assessment order. 15. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in S.K. Kantilal (supra) held that when the assessee having sold the land after holding it for two decades and using it for agriculture purpose without effecting any improvement on the land, the earning from such

DHANSUKHBHAI ARJANBHAI KANANI (HUF),SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.605/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Dhansukhbhai Arjanbhai Kanani (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), B-29/30, Laxman Nagar Co-Operative Surat. Society-2, Nr. Vasant Bhikha Ni Wadi, Lame Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaghd5954H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit( Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cas/3/503/2015-16 Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 22.01.2016. 2. When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 08.07.2021, Passed By The Division Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Group Case In Ita No.280/Srt/2018 For The Ay. 2013-14 On Identical & Similar Facts, Whereby The Issue Relating To Exemption Under Section 54B, When The Property Was Not Registered In The Name Of Huf But Registered In The Name Of One Of The Members Of Huf, Has Been Discussed & Adjudicated In Favour Of Assessee. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Present Appeal Is Squarely Covered By Assessment Year.2013-14 Dhansukhbhai A. Kanani (Huf) The Aforesaid Order Of The Tribunal, A Copy Of Which Was Also Placed Before The Bench.

sections 54B and 54F of the Act. The land in question was purchased by the assessee in the name of his son. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed

SHRI ATUL K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-3, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.267/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Atul K. Patel, V Principal Commissioner Of Income B-34, Kalpana Society-2, Rander Road, Tax-3, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura S. Adajan Patiya, Surat. Gate, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackpp 4749 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with". 10 Further the reasons recorded by Respondent No.1 for reopening the assessment do not state that the deduction under Section 54E was not considered in the assessment proceedings. In fact from the reasons, it appears that all facts were available on record and according to the respondents was only erroneously

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance of deduction under section 54B of the Act in respect of land purchased at village Bhesan ignoring the facts

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESH L. POLRA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed and subjected to capital gain tax. In response to which, the assessee stated that he fulfilled all the conditions of section 54B

SHRI RAMESH LALJIBHAI POLRA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed and subjected to capital gain tax. In response to which, the assessee stated that he fulfilled all the conditions of section 54B

SHRI SEJALBHAI G. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.971/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Sejalbhai G. Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, 225, Khodiyar Nagar Soceity, Gandhi Bardoli. Road, Bardoli, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apdpp9316C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sapneth Sheth, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Surat, In Appeal No. Cas-I/424/2014-15 Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Disallowance has been made only on the ground that satakhat i.e. agreement is not registered. It is a fact that assessee has constructed residential house and the same could have been independently verified by assessing officer. 9. In view of above, assessing officer erred in determining capital gain at Rs.68,03,622/- without giving deduction under section 54B

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

Section 54B of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee submits that that assessee claimed deduction 54B of the Act against the purchase of another agricultural land. The assessee purchased agricultural land on 20.06.2023, out of the advances received against the sale of land which was transferred by sale deed dated 17.10.2013. The Assessing Officer disallowed

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

section, the assessee is not entitled to the exemption. Thus, assessing officer held that as the assessee has not been able to get the land registered till date therefore the amount of deduction of Rs.4,04,08,003/- claimed u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI MAHESHBHAI V. SAVANI, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 305/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Maheshbhai V. Savani, Surat. 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Maheshbhai V. Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Surat. Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr Date Of Hearing 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022

54B. (ii) Treating the difference of sale consideration and purchase price of sold immovable assets as business income. (iii) Addition of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. (iv) Other disallowances and additions as per details available on records. Your reply should reach this office by 26.02.2015 else assessment in., your case will be finalized

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT vs. JAYSINH GULABSINH BODANA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Surat. 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Cross Objection No. 17/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of An Ita No.410/Srt/2019] Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jaysingh Gulabsinh Bodana, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(1)(1), 52/53, Ground Floor, Intercity Township, Surat. Dumbhal, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpb 2762 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/06/2022 15/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 54B of the Act. Therefore, the deduction claimed u/s.54B of Rs.3,84,27,584/- had been rightly rejected by assessing officer. Apart from this, Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SURAT vs. SHRI AJAY DHANSUKHBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result,appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.290/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Ajaykumar Dhansukhbhai Circle-2(3), Patel, Surat. Ishwar Krupa, B/H Anand Park, Althan, Althan Bharthana, Tal-Choriyasi, Dist. Surat – 395 007. [Pan:Amapp 3980A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shridileep Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06-07-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2018

54B clearly envisages that "....such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139..." and not due date as stipulated u/s. 139(4) of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

BHIKHABHAI RAJABHAI DHAMANIYA,SURAT vs. THE PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.110/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhameliya Principal Commissioner Of 13, Krishnanagar Society, Income Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 Bhavan, Majuira Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappd 7018 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 54B before allowing the deduction u/s 54B of the Act. For instance, Assessing Officer has not made any inquiry to ITA Nos.110-112/SRT/2022 A.Y.17-18 verify if the assessee was using the said land for agricultural purposes for two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer took place and considering that the assessee has not disclosed any agricultural income

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.110/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhikhabhai Rajabhai Dhameliya Principal Commissioner Of 13, Krishnanagar Society, Income Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 Bhavan, Majuira Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aappd 7018 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 54B before allowing the deduction u/s 54B of the Act. For instance, Assessing Officer has not made any inquiry to ITA Nos.110-112/SRT/2022 A.Y.17-18 verify if the assessee was using the said land for agricultural purposes for two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer took place and considering that the assessee has not disclosed any agricultural income