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)

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 immovable property situated at F.P.61, T.P.6 (Vesu), R.S. 246, Old R.S. 436, Surat, at a total

DIVYA FASHIONS PVT. LTD ,SURAT vs. THE CIT(A) NFAC ,DELHI, 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.155/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Divya Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Sy. No.1, Plot No.2, B/H Rathi Tax(Appeal)/ Nfac, Palace, Umarwada, Ring Road, Delhi. Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1661 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2022

section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with detailed questionnaire calling certain details was duly served upon the assessee. In the meantime, the assessee filed a revised return on 02/03/2019, revising the total income to Rs.92,610/-. However, the assessing officer noted that the revised return was filed by assessee after the due date and therefore

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions

RAJESH C DALAL-HUF,SURAT vs. ADDL/JT/DEPUTY/ASST CIT/NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

section 270AA. Yet, we find that the assessee during the assessment filed revised computation of income, and included entire income from house property in its income and such revised computation was accepted by assessing officer, in such circumstances, at the best it could be a case of under reporting of the income. We further find that the assessing officer made

MITSU PRAFUL DOSHI,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Mitsu Praful Doshi, Pr.C.I.T., 3Rd Floor, Jalnidhi Complex, Opp. Surat-1, Vs. Bahumali Building, Nanpura, Surat. Surat-395001. Pan: Afmpd 4450 N Appellant Respondednt

house is also used for professional purpose by partnership firm-hospital, wherein the assessee is a partner and ninth property at Flat No. H-201, Pragati Nagar is self-occupied property. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that none of the properties other than Rajdeep flat is let out by the assessee. 7. The ld. AR for the assessee

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

housing project, particularly when in course of search and survey operation, no unexplained investment or unexplained expenditure were detected. The ld AR made reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Abhishek Corporation [I.T. Reference No 15 of 2003] pronounced on 07.11.2014, in which other decision of the Gujarat High Court were cited. 10. It was argued that

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

housing project, particularly when in course of search and survey operation, no unexplained investment or unexplained expenditure were detected. The ld AR made reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Abhishek Corporation [I.T. Reference No 15 of 2003] pronounced on 07.11.2014, in which other decision of the Gujarat High Court were cited. 10. It was argued that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

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”. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) issued notice u/s 143(2) on 22.09.2019 and notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire on various dates. In response, the assessee filed various replies and details. The reply and explanation of assessee were accepted by the AO and no addition on any of the impugned issues was made

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

142(1) of the Income Tax 1961 dated you were asked to furnish the copy of the registered document as already considerable time has been passed since the statkhat. The reply furnished by you dated is reproduced below- 349/SRT/2022/AY.2016-17 Kristina N. Krichchan 1. Copy of sale agreement with possession is already submitted “Annexure -6” of my earlier submission. Regarding Registered

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

house property at Palsana district at “Avadh Shangrila” for a consideration of Rs.44,48,230/- on 16.10.2015 and paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 18.09.2014 and the balance amount of Rs.32,00,000/- was paid (Rs.16,00,000/- on 28.09.2014 and Rs.16,00,000/- on 30.09.2015) i.e. after the due date (i.e. 07.09.2015 for AY.2015-16) of furnishing of return of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, SURAT, SURAT vs. SHIRI ASHESH NANALAL DOSHI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY 2016-17 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 07/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

142(1) of the Act, proceeded for assessment. The Assessing Officer extracted the relevant clause on MOU and the statement of Shri Aagam V. Vadecha in the assessment order. As per MOU, the assessee was having 24% share in the land and Param Properties was having 4% share. The partner of Param Properties has stated that they made part payment

SMT NITUBEN PRADEEP DHINGRA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property and Embroidery job work. The Scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 23.11.2016 at assessed income of Rs.2,92,880/- by way of making additions of Rs.2,92,880/- on account of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, [in short

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

property. The copy of notice under Section 143(2) dated 12/09/2018 is filed on record. The Assessing Officer during the assessment, issued notice under Section 142(1) dated 20/11/2018. In the said notice in question No. 4, the Assessing Officer raised the issue of long term capital gain and required copy of sale deed and copy of purchase deed

SUNIL KUMAR BAHETI,SURAT vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property income, the Ld. AR submitted that the properties were either used for business Sunil Kumar Baheti Vs. PCIT Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 3– purposes, self-occupation, or the possession had not been received during the relevant year. These facts were verifiable from records already available with the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR relied on the decision