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

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

1- 1/2 years of delay and there is no provision under section 270AA for condoning such delay. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and the learned senior departmental representative (Sr DR) for the revenue and have seen the order

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

MR. RAMANLAL RAGHABHI PATEL ,DAMAN vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramanlal Raghabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Near Check Post, Dabhel, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpp2952J

142(1) of the I. Tax Act, along with a detailed questionnaire, calling for details and explanations was issued on 10.11.2019 and served on the assessee through e-mail. 2. In response to notices, the assessee has e-filled his submission in response to various notices issued to him and furnished the required details

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

PREETIBEN CHHATRASINGH CHAUHAN,SILVASSA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2018-19. Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

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

Housing Society Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 272 (Gujarat) (PB-124), Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 314 ITR 263 (Gujarat) and ITO v. Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. [ 2008] 117 (JP) 542(PB-136) contended that the AO did not have authority to refer the matter to DVO under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act on 06.08.1999 when

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

SHANKAR ZETHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, 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.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

house of Shri Bipinbhai Naranbhai Patel at B-54, Vishal Nagar, Near Swaminarayan School, Italva, Navsari, several incriminating documents were seized/impounded and annexurised as A-1 to A-3. The seized documents in Annexure A-3, pages 01 to 04 are cheques issued by the assessee from his bank account, with SBI account number 34977252514. From the facts further gathered

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

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

section 142(1) dated 21.09.2022 calling upon the assessee to explain the alleged cash payment of Rs.27,87,450/- for purchase of shop No. 547. The assessee categorically denied having purchased any such shop or having made any payment and this reply was duly filed and acknowledged. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer, after examining the explanation

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

1) is that the assessee should invest the sale proceeds in the construction of residential house, which has been constructed for the assessee. “Here in the case, there was no dispute that the assessee has invested the amount towards plot of land, and incurred expenses for development of land and construction of property. Intention of the assessee was to investment

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the se of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Assessing Assessing Officer Officer Officer noticed noticed noticed cash cash cash deposits deposits deposits aggregating aggregating aggregating to to to ₹1,50,60,000/- in two bank accounts maintained by the assessee, in two bank accounts maintained by the assessee

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)

142(1) was issued on 19.07.2018, with a specific questionnaire and asked the assessee to submit its reply on 27.07.2018. In response to the notices issued, assessee furnished documents and its reply. The assessee, vide its letter dated 01.08.2018, submitted its reply. The relevant portion of the submission is reproduced below: “Further in contention of our earlier submission

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

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

housing scheme and to cheat the revenue, is not the object of section 54F of the Act. The assessee has to prove with cogent evidence that the property held by him is a commercial property and is in the nature of commercial purpose and such nature has not been proved by the assessee during the assessment stage. The Ld. PCIT

HARSHAD KANJIBHAI PANCHANI,SURAT vs. ACIT, WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

142(1) were issued. During the scrutiny, the Assessing Officer observed unexplained credits in bank accounts, investment in immovable property, and ownership of commercial properties without declaring rental income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3), making additions as follows: i. Rs. 1,24,57,286/- on account of unexplained bank credits

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

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

SHRI HARESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL MAHADEVWALA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1) of the Act for seeking details to substantiate the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 2.00 lacs in HDFC bank and Rs. 13,35,000/- in Bank of Baroda. The assessee in response to 6th show cause notice, filed its reply on 07/11/2019. In support of cash deposit