DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. BHARTIBEN BHOLABHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHORBHAI MANUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. RAHULKUMAR VINUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. ANKIT BHOLABHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4, SURAT, SURAT vs. CHATURBHAI MANUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. PARSHOTTAMBHAI BACHUBHAI RADADIA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, SURAT, SURAT vs. ANKUR BHOLABHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

RAVI MEEMROT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. MEHUL VINUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

section 292C of the Act is also available against the assessee. The Ld. AR further stated that the two other images, as reproduced in para 9.2 and 9.3 of the assessment order, relied upon by the AO do not contain the name or signature of the assessee but contains the name of some unrelated persons. Moreover, the copies

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

37,397/-. 3.1 The PCIT also observed that the assessee had wrongly shown income from house property at Rs.51,75,850/- instead of declaring it as income from capital gain on the sale of land at Survey No.344/1/B at Olpad, Surat. The sale consideration declared was Rs.1,62,04,000/- but the stamp duty value of the ITA No.541/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Engineering

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property’, income from ‘business and profession’ and income from ‘other sources’ comprising interest income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that assessee has purchased a property amounting to Rs.6,37,97,760/- during the assessment year under consideration. The source of the funds are mostly loans and gifts received by the assessee from various persons during

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

37,51,923/-. The assessee paid booking amount of said house of Rs. 5.00 lacs on 14/05/2012, as the property was sold on 03/11/2010 and another property was purchased on 18/11/2015, the 2 Chaitali Suril Udeshi Vs ITO Assessing Officer was of the view that a new residential house was purchased after lapse of five years and the assessee

SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

house property located at Bunglow no. 3 Pritamnager - 1 society, Maktampur, Bharuch for a total consideration Rs. 1.5 crores out of which Rs. 75 lacs were paid in FY 2008-09 (Rs 25 lacs each). Q11: What is the source of your payment of Rs. 25 lacs during FY 2008-09 to ShriFarsuram R Bhamwala? A11: I have paid

SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10,13,908/-. Section 271B speaks to failure to get the account audited as required under Section 44AB of the Act, meaning thereby the audit is required in connection with business or profession and no any other turnover. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 115BBE are not applicable to the case as also they have been held not to be applicable retrospectively. (VI) Addition of Rs.6,02,049 being 30% of Rs.20,06,830 made u/s.40(a)(ia): On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not — justified in confirming the disallowance. (VII) Addition of Rs.61,10

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

37,500 12,69,200 2,62,692 DEED. 701 … … EXECUTED TOTAL 601 78,50,000 … … 12,69,200 2,62,692 … .. 701 90,50,000 … … 1,69,00,000 13,12,408 54,35,981 17,81,713 In short, the assessee has received sale consideration in piecemeal (as mentioned above in tabular format) and has constructed the residential

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI M LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(3), SURAT

In the result, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.672/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) The Amroli Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Dcit, Karyakari Sahkari M. Ltd., Circle – 2(3), Utran Amroli, Taluka Choryasi, Surat Surat – 394105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat3043M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 18/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

37 of all expenditure incurred for the purpose of deriving the business income, and it is under that head that the interest paid on the loan taken from the bank is deducted. The net amount of interest contemplated by Section 80AB should take in the net amount arrived at after meeting the expenses deductible from that item under the provisions

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property, Business and Profession, and Other Sources. The assessee filed original return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18, on 29.12.2017, declaring total income of Rs.24,77,900/-. This return of income was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In assessee`s case no assessment was completed earlier

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

property and received Rs. 1.13 crore as his share. The assessee invested part of sale consideration on construction/repair of residential house and claimed exemption under Section 54F of Rs. 55.00 lacs. The Assessing Officer disallowed such exemption and ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. The assessee made contract with four contractors for flooring work from Ashokbhai Nanubhai

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. SHRI MAHENDRA CHAMPAKLAL MEHTA, SURAT

In the result, IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 06/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

house on the land owned by one Asheshbhai N. Doshi by contributing the development expenses in equal proportion and the profit on sale thereof, would be distributed amongst the partners as per their profit share in ratio. There is no evidence whatsoever suggesting any investment by the assessee as per the said deed. The land is still in the name