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

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

24 Vlshal Limbabhai Desai (TDS Deducted) AUEPD9432H 849,380 25 Bharatbhai H. Mangukiya (Form 26A ARXPM6823D 750,630 attached) 26 Govindbhai R. Patel (Form 26A ANRPP6788L 13,499,921 attached) 27 Jay Balanand Construction (Form 26A AAJFJ7023K 91,959,227 attached) 28 Pareshbhai Punjabhai Vanzara (Form AZDPV7852K 458,000 26A attached) ITA No.541/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. 29 Other

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S DIANCO, , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Dianco, Central Circle-4, C-210, Prasad Chambers, Opera Vs. Surat. House, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaafd 2501 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

House, Mumbai. PAN No. AAAFD 2501 R Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R. Department represented by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 31/07/2023 Date of pronouncement 03/08/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order

REKHA AJAYKUMAR AGRAWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX, CIR.1(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.356/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of 229-230, Ashoka Tower, Ring Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Vs. Road,Surat-395002 Bhavan, N. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaspa 2993 A (Assessee ) (Respondent)

x 12 = 180000/2 = 90000). The estimated let out income of Rs.2,70,000/- is subjected to deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Therefore, the net annual let-out value of the property comes to Rs.1,89,000/- (270000 – 81000 being 30% of 270000). Therefore, the net annual let out value of the property is determined at Rs.1

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

JAYANTIBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. WARD NO. 1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2– not to levy the penalty in as much as the Parliament has not used 'shall'; and by using the word 'may' in sub-section (i) of section 270A of the Act, its conveys the intention of the Parliament that levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not mandatory 3. Section 270A(9) says, what is under-reported

SHRI HITESH HIMMATLAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Hitesh Himmatlal Savani, I.T.O. 20-21, Keshav Park Society, Ved Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Road, Surat-395008. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Pan No. Bijps 5821 H Gate, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee on 31/3/2014. The case of assessee was reopened by the Assessing officer by recording reasons that a survey

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI, SURAT

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

24. We find that despite recording the aforesaid findings the assessing officer held that the assessee has accepted some land transactions were made through Dilip Sojitra, therefore, to protect the interest of revenue and to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage a protective addition is made at the hand of assessee,as made in the case of Dilip Sojitra

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Housing Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Mad) held as under: In the instant case, the assessee did not ask for these 'reasons to believe'. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this appeal, he Ratilal

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Housing Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Mad) held as under: In the instant case, the assessee did not ask for these 'reasons to believe'. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this appeal, he Ratilal

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Housing Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Mad) held as under: In the instant case, the assessee did not ask for these 'reasons to believe'. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this appeal, he Ratilal

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Housing Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Mad) held as under: In the instant case, the assessee did not ask for these 'reasons to believe'. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this appeal, he Ratilal

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

24 and 25 of the PB) , the ld AR for the assessee submits that when income is estimated, these provisions are not applicable. Reliance is made on the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT Vs Juned B. Memon [95 taxmann.com 20 (Guj HC)]. Further it was submitted that when income is declared under IDS, the provisions

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

24 and 25 of the PB) , the ld AR for the assessee submits that when income is estimated, these provisions are not applicable. Reliance is made on the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT Vs Juned B. Memon [95 taxmann.com 20 (Guj HC)]. Further it was submitted that when income is declared under IDS, the provisions

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

X Rs.400 per sq. Yard 4,55,00,000 Higher of A, B & C 4,55,00,000 Income disclosed under IDS, 2016 5,50,00,000 (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar 20. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 5.50 Crore, includes the declaration for all three assessment years

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

X Rs.400 per sq. Yard 4,55,00,000 Higher of A, B & C 4,55,00,000 Income disclosed under IDS, 2016 5,50,00,000 (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar 20. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 5.50 Crore, includes the declaration for all three assessment years

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

X Rs.400 per sq. Yard 4,55,00,000 Higher of A, B & C 4,55,00,000 Income disclosed under IDS, 2016 5,50,00,000 (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar 20. It was submitted that the amount of Rs. 5.50 Crore, includes the declaration for all three assessment years

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

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

24,70,47,617/-) and receipts as per Form 26AS (Rs. 26,89,90,965/-). 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, granted partial relief. While the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

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

24,70,47,617/-) and receipts as per Form 26AS (Rs. 26,89,90,965/-). 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, granted partial relief. While the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition