SHRI PRAKASHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Prakashbhai Prahladbhai Income Tax Officer Gami, Gangakrupa Building, Ward-2(3)(3), Aaykar Vs B/H Ramdeev Complex, Puna Bhavan, Majura Gate, Village, Dist. Surat, Surat-395001 Pan : Adspp 6520 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 23(a) by taking view that assessee has two residential house, one at Surat and 4 Sh. Prakashbhai P. Gami another at Mumbai. The4 assessee has not offered any income under the head ‘income from house property’ for taxation, in respect of residential property in Mumbai. The assessee is residing in Surat and carrying its business activities from Surat

THE UDHNA UDYOGNAGAR SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Udhna Udhyognagar Sahakari Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Sangh Ltd, Income Tax, Central Road No.10, P. B. No.10, Circle-1(2), Surat Udhna Udhyognagar, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaat2932K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushi Parekh - Ca Respondent By : Shri O P Meena – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : : 13/10/2020 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 08.08.2017 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 ( For Short “The Act”), For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Deemed Rent Of Rs.11,12,720/- While Not Considering The Decision Of Supreme Court In Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit. 2. That The Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Unsold Shops Used For The Business Of Assessee Society. 3. That The Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Deemed Rent On Unsold Shops, Ignoring The Amendment To Section 23(5) W.E.F. Ay. 2018-19. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary & / Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Ground Of Appeal.”

section 23(5) w.e.f. AY. 2018-19. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above ground of Appeal.” Udhna Udhyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd Assessment Year: 2013-14 2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee before us is a society

HEMANT ISHWARLAL DESAI,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Hemant Ishwarlal Desai Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(1) 305-306, Mahima Heights, Nr. Shardayatan Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat. School, Chandani Chowk, Surat-395007. Pan/Gir No.Abkpd0745Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Dr)

100/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessment was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee has earned income from Salary, Long Term Capital gain and income from other sources. On verification, it was found that the assessee along with 03 other Co-owners have sold

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

house property, which was actually required to be offered as capital gain u/s 45 of the Act. The difference between the value determined by the SVA and declared consideration was Rs.16,06,112/- [1,78,06,112 – 1,62,00,000], which was 9.02% and was more than the tolerance limit of 5% for the subject assessment year. The assessment

SHREE HARI PROCESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(2) (NEW ITO WD. 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Hari Processors India Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Block No.99/P, Post Ward-2(1)(2), [New Ito Wd Vs Tatithaiya, 2(1)(3)] Aayakar Bhawan, Tal-Palsana, Majura Gate, Surat-394 372 Surat-395001 E-Mail:Jain_Tex@Yahoo.Com Pan : Aadca 1313 N Appellant /Assessee Respondent / Revenue

house property” and allowed standard deduction @ 30% on disallowance of depreciation. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of amount of tax sought to be evaded. The mere fact the assessee’s claim of depreciation, which was not accepted by Assessing Officer would not attract penalty under section

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)

house. The Assessing Officer was of the view that for claiming deduction under section 54B, the assessee or his specified persons referred in Section 54B is required to carry out agricultural activities on the land sold as well as on newly purchased land. The Assessing Officer asked the 4 Jerambhai B Gohil assessee to substantiate such claim and noted that

KIRIT BABUBHAI JHAVERI,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

100/-. The assessee had sold the said property with another co-owner and received Rs.1,64,77,050/- from the total sale consideration and worked out capital gain on the same. Against the long-term capital gains (LTCG) calculated, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.54B of the Act against purchase of the agricultural land and deduction u/s.54F

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE RAM DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1841/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S Shree Ram Developers, Of Income Tax, Central “Shrushti Row House”, Circle-2, Surat. Kosad, Surat 394 107. [Pan: Abkfs 4321 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin K.Parekh – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 08.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat Dated 11.04.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S.69A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Spite Of The Fact That Shri Ankurbhai Babariya, One Of The Trustworthy Person Of Shri Jayantibhai Babariay, A Partner Of M/S Shree Ram Developers Had Explained That Seized Documents From His Premise Are Related To Shrusti Row House Maintained By Him Which Was Later On Also Admitted By Him In His Statement On Oath & This Project Was Developed By The Assessee Firm I.E. M/S Shree Ram Developers. Also, There Was No Denial That On Money Has Been Seized In The Shrusti Row House Project. [2] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred To Held The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Dcit Vs. Shree Ram Developers /

property. A search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Shri Ankur Babariya at 20, Ram Krupa Society, Saroli Road, Puna Gaon, Surat on 17.07.2012. From his premises, certain papers in the form of ledger accounts were seized as Annexure –A/1, A/3 and A/5. Shri Ankurbhai Gordhanbhai Babariya was working with the partners

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

house renovation of Rs. 37,96,897/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee maintained separate books of account for petrol pump business which is duly audited. The assessee also maintained personal books, wherein besides holding personal assets, income from other sources and income from carting business is accounted. Statement of total income

SHRI NANUBHAI G. AHIR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Nanubhai G. Ahir, The Income Tax Officer, 143, Sultanabad, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat. Vs Ambawadi, Dumas, Surat. Pan : Atgta 0140 A Applicant Respondent

House Property, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), and Income from Other Sources. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee sold a piece of land out of S.No.275, TP No.80, FP No.257 situated at Sultanabad, Surat for a Nanubhai G. Ahir (AY 2012-13) consideration of Rs.3.30 crore

M/S. MAROLI BAZAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

100%, while the quantum under clause (c) is restricted to one lakh rupees in case of consumers' cooperative society and fifty thousand rupees in any other case. The said clause (c) grants the deduction in respect of profits and gains attributable to activities other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b). Income of the nature specified in clauses

KHAREL VIBHAG V. V. K.S. M. LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

100%, while the quantum under clause (c) is restricted to one lakh rupees in case of consumers' cooperative society and fifty thousand rupees in any other case. The said clause (c) grants the deduction in respect of profits and gains attributable to activities other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b). Income of the nature specified in clauses

KHAREL VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NAVSARI, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

100%, while the quantum under clause (c) is restricted to one lakh rupees in case of consumers' cooperative society and fifty thousand rupees in any other case. The said clause (c) grants the deduction in respect of profits and gains attributable to activities other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b). Income of the nature specified in clauses

MAROLI BAZAAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

100%, while the quantum under clause (c) is restricted to one lakh rupees in case of consumers' cooperative society and fifty thousand rupees in any other case. The said clause (c) grants the deduction in respect of profits and gains attributable to activities other than those specified in clauses (a) and (b). Income of the nature specified in clauses

SHRI PANKAJ KISHORCHANDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.303/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Pankaj Kishorchandra Desai Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 401, Vishal Society, Vidhya Vihar Vs. 123, Majura Gate, Surat Society, Jamnagar, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abgpd 9704 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

house property, investment, future / options trading income, capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 17.07.2013, declaring income of Rs.20,69,100/-. Subsequently scrutiny assessment for the year under consideration was finalized by assessing officer u/s 143(3), dated 04.03.2016 wherein assessee’s return of income was accepted

MRS. KIRAN CHOWDHURY,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

100% of Commission expenditure. 4. Facts apropos of this ground are that the AO found that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to Smt. Khusboo Chowdhury towards commission payments. The AO issued summons under section 131 of the Act to Khusboo Choudhury to verify the claim of expenses, but no compliance was made. It was submitted

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT vs. MRS. KIRAN CHOWDHURY, PROP. M/S. KIRAN TRADE LINK,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

100% of Commission expenditure. 4. Facts apropos of this ground are that the AO found that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to Smt. Khusboo Chowdhury towards commission payments. The AO issued summons under section 131 of the Act to Khusboo Choudhury to verify the claim of expenses, but no compliance was made. It was submitted

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

RAVI SHANKAR HARI MALPANI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.926/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Vs. The Acit, 1009/10, Ambaji Market, Near Kamela Circle – 1(2), Darwaja, Salabatpura, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afspm7945K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

house property. The total income was determined at Rs.53,63,740/- against returned income of Rs.17,84,250/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant are extracted at pages 2 ITA No.926/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani to 5 of the appellate order