SHRI PINKESH B. BALAJIWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3036/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Pinkesh B. Balajiwala, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 161, Old Gidc, Near Sutex Bank, Income-Tax, Katargam Surat Pan:Agcpb8995R Circle -3(2) Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

property. Similarly, other provisions of section 43CA are also have same effect. Thus, the provision of section 56 and 43CA are on the same line as the provisions of section 50C and also in the matter under consideration, part payment are made at the time of agreement to sale and amount of Rs. 7 Lakh has been paid before

PANKAJBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.589/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Pankajbhai Hathibhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 112, Sangath Mall 1, Ward-6(3), Surat Vs. Opp. Govt. Engineering College, Motera, Ahmedabad-380005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpp 0099 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

50C of the Act at Rs.3,32,34,124/- as against actual sale consideration of Rs.3,11,00,000/- in respect sale of house property. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in not allowing further deduction

BHARGAV BHARATBHAI PANDYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. PAN No. BCWPP 1537 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14/06/2023 Date of pronouncement 22/08/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

property at Rs.3.56 crores. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer made request for making reference for estimation of Fair Market Value (‘FMV’ in short) by District Valuation Officer (‘DVO’ in short) on the date of sale of said assets. Till passing of the assessment order, the report of DVO was not received. The Assessing Officer thus made addition of ½ share

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

houses. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 04.08.2006 declaring income of Rs.26,11,859/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 31.05.2007, accepting the income returned. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs.56

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

housing projector commercial project which can support the claim of assessee that he has decided to carry out business activity on such land. Mere converting agricultural land into non-agricultural land does not mean that land held by assessee become stock in trade. It is pertinent to note that even circumstantial evidences does not suggest that land has been converted

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

VINOD JERAMBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Vinod Jerambhai Patel, P.C.I.T.-1 D-1108, Spring Velly, Nr. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Pushpavatika Hall, New City Surat-395002. Light Road, Surat. Pan: Abcpp 1420 E Appellant Respondednt

property at Moje Village Umra District Surat on 24.06.2014 and shown less value of sale consideration than the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority, therefore, provision of section 50C is applicable. The assessee filed its reply on 11/03/2020. In the reply, the assessee explained that he had sold a Flat No. D/801, Krish Enclave, Tarzan Cooperative Housing Society

SHRI SEJALBHAI G. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.971/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Sejalbhai G. Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, 225, Khodiyar Nagar Soceity, Gandhi Bardoli. Road, Bardoli, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apdpp9316C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sapneth Sheth, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Surat, In Appeal No. Cas-I/424/2014-15 Dated 18.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction u/s 54B and 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed

SHAUKET HUSSAIN M PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shaukethussain M Patel, I.T.O., A-504, Sanjay Residency, Ward-1(3)(9), Vs. Causeway Road, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, Rander, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395009. Surat-395001. Pan No. Artpp 2101 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

50C(2) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have referred the matter to the valuation officer to determine the correct value of the property. It be so held now. 6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting exemption u/s 54F of the Act for investment made in purchase of residential house on sale

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, VAPI vs. M/S. KRIMPI DISTILLERY, NANI DAMAN

In the result, appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am करअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.01To 06/Srt/2017& आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.47/Srt/2017 "तया"ेयसं./Cross Objection Nos.02To 08/Srt/2018 [A/O In It(Ss)A Nos.01 To 06/Srt/2017 & Ita No.47/Srt/2017] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Krimpi Distillery, Vapi. Plot No.34-37, Supreme Ind. Estate, Bhimpore, Nani Daman- 396210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofm6580H अपीलाथ" /Applicant ""यथ"/Respondent/"तया"ेपक/Co- Objector

house where it is stored. There are five basic ingredients used in manufacture of alcoholic beverage viz: IMFL: (1) Rectified Spirit, (2) Extraneutral alcohol, (3) Malt Spirit, (4) Scotch Concentrate, (5) Demineralized Water. The assessing officer noted that demineralized water forms an important and the most basic part of alcoholic beverage viz: IMFL and is therefore an integral part

JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Mehta, Vs. Ito, Office No.M-24, Mezn Floor, Ward – 1(1)(3), 10/21, Flox Chamber, Tata Road Surat No. 1, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004, Maharashtra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ambpm9018P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 13.11.2024, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DHARMENDRA B. PATEL,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(3), SURAT

section 143(3) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 31.03.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.34

HETALKUMAR CHANDRAKANTBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Chandrakantbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, A-371/3, Sundervan Raw House, Nr. Ward – 1(3)(7), Subhash Garden, Jahangirabad, Surat Bhesan, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkrpp5151R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025

House, Nr. Ward – 1(3)(7), Subhash Garden, Jahangirabad, Surat Bhesan, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: BKRPP5151R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AR Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from