NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, 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.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

4) of the Act, the amount of capital gain which is not utilized for the purchase of new asset, before the due date of furnishing the return of income under section 139 of the Act should be deposited in Capital gain account before the furnishing the return of income under sub section (1) of section 139 of the Act. However

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)

139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, proceeded for assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that as per MOU, the assessee is having share of 36% in the land. The partner of Param Properties as stated that they have made part payment of Rs. 25.00 lacs in cash

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

housing project which was yet to be constructed, since assessee had made entire payment toward investment in new flat within period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset, amount was to be treated as invested in purchase / construction of new residential 8 Chaitali Suril Udeshi Vs ITO property and assessee is to be allowed exemption under

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

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

4. I had acquired/purchased new residential property within time allowed u/s 54F. (property’s registered conveyance deed of sale was executed on 16.09.2016 and new property’s registered conveyance deed was executed on 11.04.2017) which is within time allowed u/s 54F. Ledger and bank statement of sale proceeds received and showing payment made to acquire new residential property is attached

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 from bank for which necessary sanction letter was issued, copy of which was filed. Copy of sale deed of agricultural land and evidence of reimbursement of loan was provided. On the basis of such submission, the assessee stated that reopening is bad in law as well as no addition can be made and prayed to delete

VIRAL SHAILESH SHAH,VALSAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.536/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Shailesh Shah, Vs. The Acit, C/O. Dr. Shailesh V. Shah, B/H. Valsad Circle, Pramanik Store, Opp. Atul First Valsad Gate, Atul, Valsad – 396020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfaps6008A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 139 of I.T. Act. Therefore, assessee’s case was re- opened and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2018 by the ITO, Ward-4, Valsad after obtaining approval of Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad u/s 151(1) of the IT Act and the same was duly served upon the assessee. 5. As per AIR information

SHAH AND SANGHAVI DEVELOPERS LLP,VESU, SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

house property as follows: Deemed rent 27632 x 12 x Rs10 = Rs.33,15,840/- Less: 30% statutory deduction 30% of Rs.33,15,840/- Rs. 9,94,752- Net deemed rent Rs.23,21,088/- This way, the deemed rent u/s 23(5) of the Act with respect to the vacant commercial units for which BUCs received

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

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the impugned AY 2015-16. In this case, information was received indicating that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs.23,41,300/- in his savings account maintained with the HDFC Bank, received sale consideration on sale of an immovable property of Rs.71

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

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the impugned AY 2015-16. In this case, information was received indicating that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs.23,41,300/- in his savings account maintained with the HDFC Bank, received sale consideration on sale of an immovable property of Rs.71

MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

House, MukatanandMarg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat -396191 and is a subsidiary company of Germany based MHM Holding GmbH. The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Printing Inks and their intermediate/key raw materials. In order to have effective communications among the group companies, MHM Holding GmbH, Germany has entered into contract with BT (Germany) GmbH, Germany

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

House, MukatanandMarg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat -396191 and is a subsidiary company of Germany based MHM Holding GmbH. The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Printing Inks and their intermediate/key raw materials. In order to have effective communications among the group companies, MHM Holding GmbH, Germany has entered into contract with BT (Germany) GmbH, Germany

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

4. The word "owner", as observed by the Supreme Court in R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (at page 578) has different meanings in different contexts and in certain circumstances even a lessee may be considered as the owner of the property leased to him. It was also held to be so by the Bombay High

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

properties which fell in the category of stock-in-trade and not capital asset. Therefore, the profit on such sale was not eligible for exemption from taxation. In view of the same, the claim of tax exemption made in subsection 2(14)(iii) of the Act of Rs.1,21,92,898/- was rejected and the same was added as business