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

54B of the Act is allowable as the transaction is enforceable in the eyes of the law. 11. On the identical facts, Hon`ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Balraj, [2002] 123 Taxman 290 (Delhi) held that section 54 of the Act speaks of purchase only and for availing benefit under this section, it is not necessary

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’).

property at Rs.l,50,09,950/-, therefore assessing officer observed that provisions of section 50C of the Act were attracted, in the assessee`s case under consideration. The assessee has never challenged this valuation before assessing officer, hence the amount of Rs.75,49,750/- (50% of Rs.1,50,09,950/-) was acceptable to the assessee. The assessee has not even

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

section 54B of the Act. 6. The ld PCIT also noted that assessee has purchased a new house property at Palsana

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SURAT vs. SHRI AJAY DHANSUKHBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result,appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.290/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Ajaykumar Dhansukhbhai Circle-2(3), Patel, Surat. Ishwar Krupa, B/H Anand Park, Althan, Althan Bharthana, Tal-Choriyasi, Dist. Surat – 395 007. [Pan:Amapp 3980A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shridileep Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06-07-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2018

property before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 54B of the Act clearly envisages that "....such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return of income under sub-section

SHRI NANUBHAI G. AHIR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Nanubhai G. Ahir, The Income Tax Officer, 143, Sultanabad, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat. Vs Ambawadi, Dumas, Surat. Pan : Atgta 0140 A Applicant Respondent

House Property, Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), and Income from Other Sources. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee sold a piece of land out of S.No.275, TP No.80, FP No.257 situated at Sultanabad, Surat for a Nanubhai G. Ahir (AY 2012-13) consideration of Rs.3.30 crore