SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

section 54F of the Act. As such, the deduction of Rs.52,04,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 54F is disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

disallowance of deduction under Section 54F/addition of long term capital gain, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The assessee submitted that the assessee earned capital gain at Rs. 7.19 crores and after claiming benefit of Section 54F

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

Section 54F are not fulfilled by the assessee and deduction was required to be disallowed. Secondly, the assessee claimed deduction

DHANSUKHLAL RAMANBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

disallowing claim of exemption U/s 54F of the Act from the income of Long Term Capital Gain received on sale of land at Mota Varachha, Surat though a residential house was constructed by utilizing sale consideration received on sale of land and thereby fulfilling all the relevant conditions as prescribed under Section

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

disallowance of Rs. 2,40,540 under section 54F of the Act. (6) Appellant craves leaves to add, after a delete

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

disallowance of deduction under section 54F of the Act. Since, we have allowed ground no.1 of the assessee, holding the assessee

DINESHCHANDRA NARHARISHANKAR UPADHYAY,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshchandra Narharishankar Principal Commissioner Of Upadhyay, 5/1203, Main Income-Tax-1, Room No. 123, Vs. Road, Haripura, Surat-395003 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpu 1094 J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

section 54F of the Act shall not apply in assesee`s case. Therefore, total amount of Rs.1,32,24,658/- was required to be disallowed

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 54EC is applicable from A.Y. 2015 -2016. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance u/s 54F of Rs.48

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

disallowing deduction of Rs.1,59,40,044/-/ claimed u/s 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is, therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax-Appeals, may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course

CHANDRAKANT BHAGWANJI POPAT,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 1(3), , SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Chandrakant Bhagwanji Popat, D.C.I.T., 54, Dev Deep Society, Circle-1(3), Vs. Ichchhanath Road, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abnpp 1088 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 54F of Rs. 1.63 crore, thus the assessee was asked to explain as to why Rs. 16,38,616/- (Rs. 1,63,92,616 – 1,47,54,000/-) should not be disallowed

SHRI HIMMATBHAI MOHANBHAI KHENI,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

disallowed the long term capital gain and repeated the said short term capital gain. Consequently upon, the deduction under section 54F

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

section 54F of the IT Act is not applicable. On being queried in the show-cause letter dated 15.01.2018, in this regard, the assessee vide his letter dated 27.01.2018 has now stated that the mistake was committed through oversight and the deduction is claimed u/s 54 and not u/s 54F of the Act. 14. Therefore ld PCIT held that claim

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed the entire deduction of Rs. 28.00 lacs. 5. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). Besides challenging the reopening

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. SHRI SUNNY CHANDRAKANT FUDHNAWALA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- Shri Sunny Chandrakant Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room Fudhnawala Vs No. 108, 1St Floor, Aaykar 47, Matawadi, Nr. Bhavani Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Mata Temple, L.H. Road, 395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Aahpf 6359 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act and income earned from the transaction from the land treated as business receipts of the assessee. Sh. Sunny C. Fudhnwala 2. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO in this

VASUBEN NATWERLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, OLD WARD-1(3)(9) NEW WARD- 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical\npurpose and ground No

sections": [ "54", "54F", "143(3)", "147", "50C", "2(14)" ], "issues": "Disallowance of claim under section 54 and determination of the cost

SHRI SUNNY CHADRAKANT FUDHANAWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIR3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

54F to the tune of Rs.1,20,08,843/-, which was required to be disallowed and assessee himself has stated that assessee is dealing in real estate, construction business and in the course of the real estate business, the assessee purchased land of open plot, dilapidated properties and other construction / development and sold the same. As per Ld. PCIT, since

DISHANT SURESHBHAI PATEL,INDIVIDUAL vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming