M/S. ASHADEEP DEVELOPERS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1337/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000 M/S. Ashadeep Developers, Income Tax Officer, Shyam Nagar-4, Near Ward-1, Navsari Seventh Day High School, Vijalpore, Navsari 396450 Pan: Aaaaa 9272 F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

property and submitted report dated 29.11.2000 (PB-1 to 6)at Rs.71,71,225. Based on which, the Department has initiated proceeding under section 148 of the Act on 16.01.2006. (PB-23). Therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that reference to DVO could be made when assessment proceedings are pending. In the case of there was no proceedings

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

houses. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 04.08.2006 declaring income of Rs.26,11,859/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 31.05.2007, accepting the income returned. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs.56

VIJAY RAMSINGH GOYAL,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT., SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

housing loan. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the Assessing Officer during the assessment clearly, while recording the reasons of reopening, noted that no return of income was filed. Copy of return of income shown

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

reopening, issued various notices under Section 142(1) to furnish the complete details and explanation with justification at source of cash deposit. Moreover, no such objection was raised either before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I do not find any justification in raising the grounds of appeal straightway before the Tribunal. In the result, grounds

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

reopened on the basis of information available on ITD System that the assessee sold immovable property for Rs. 52,31,000/-. No return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 was filed by the assessee. On the basis of information, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons that the income of assessee has escaped assessment. Notice under Section 148 dated 27/03/2018 was served

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)

reopening assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961. Jerambhai B Gohil 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the action of assessing office in disallowing exemption of Rs.22,54,910/- claimed

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

house property, income from partnership-firm and income\nfrom other sources during the year under consideration. The return was processed\nu/s 143(1) of the Act on 19.03.2013. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of\nthe Act after recording the reasons by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on\n28.03.2019. As per the information received, a search

DEEPAKKUMAR NANDLAL RAJYAGURU,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House, Near Pragati Nagar Piplot, Surat PAN : AGFPR4373J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Chanda, C.A. Respondent by: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed against the order dated 13-05-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

SHRI HEMRAJSINH KIRANSINH RATHOD,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

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.239/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The Pcit, Krishna Petroleum, Iocl Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, Ut Of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aihpr4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 14/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

properties of business. Since said overdraft facility was to manage day to day business of the assessee, the loan processing charges paid of Rs.59326/- is a revenue nature, and it is not a capital nature and accordingly, the assessee had debited said processing charges to his profit and loss a/c. We further submit that; We submit that Assessee's return

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

house property’, ‘Income from capital gains’, and ‘Income from other sources’ will not be part of book profit. Therefore, the excess payment of remuneration of Rs.2,24,247/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

house property, business and other sources. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,94,180/- on 20.09.2015, for the assessment year 2015-16. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS under criteria “completed scrutiny” with the reason “Mismatch in sale turnover reported in audit report and ITR and suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. DMC CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

House Opp. CNI Church, Mugalisara, Surat and evidence of on-money was found pertaining to 10 flats. The amount involved in those transactions varies from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs.15.00 lakh respectively. The Assessing Officer prepared a summary on page-8 in his assessment order. On the basis of such summary and the details of document of flat No.404 purchased

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Housing Board, Near Tejas School, Bharuch Race Course Road, Vadodara-390023 [PAN : AMZPC 4796 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Housing Board, Near Tejas School, Bharuch Race Course Road, Vadodara-390023 [PAN : AMZPC 4796 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

housing loan interest of Rs.2,00,000/- as per section 24 of Income Tax Act while assessing the total income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction under chapter

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

housing loan interest of Rs.2,00,000/- as per section 24 of Income Tax Act while assessing the total income of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as learned Assessing Officer have erred in not allowing deduction under chapter

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee’s case was reopened and the order passed under Section147 of the Act making addition of Rs. 20,14,000/- to the income of the assessee, being investment made in a house property

RAZAK ABDULKARIM MANSURI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

house property and interest income. The appellant is filling his return of income regularly He had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 05/02/2018 with vide acknowledgement number 386334240050218 returning to the total income of Rs.6,52,730/- The appellants case was taken up for scrutiny assessment under CASS and notice under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SHRI CHANDRESH NANUBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

assessing officer, the assessee furnished submission / explanation. After this, a show cause notice issued to the assessee on 27.12.2021 which is reproduced as under: A. Y. 2013-14 Chandresh N.Patel “A search action was conducted at the residence of Shri Shankar Uttamchandani on 06.02.2020. During course of search, digital data in the form of mobile of Shri Shankar Uttamchandani, desktop