MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner' of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products

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

1, Indraprastha Row House, Magob, Surat, by taking view that on examination of record, it was noted that the assessee has not purchased new asset but merely carried out construction of existing house owned 3 Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel Vs Pr.CIT since 2008. Thus, the condition of Section 54F are not fulfilled by the assessee and deduction was required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. GEMALSINGH MOHANSINGH SOLANKI, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.447/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Gemalsinh Mohansinh Solanki Tax, Circle-2(3), Room No. 612, 6Th (Huf), 1, Chandramani Society, Vs. Opp. Madhi Ni Khamni, Bhatar Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr.Majura Road, Surat-395001 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aachg 5158 D (Appellant ) (Respondent)

property would in effect seriously limit the object and purpose of Section 54F of the Act. 12. To delineate further, an incidental situation may also crop up whether capital gains deduction with reference to Section 54F of the Act would apply with respect to a solitary transaction and not on whole of several different transaction of capital assets

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

54F. Further, Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue was also dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide (2014) 52 taxmann.com 246-SC. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Arun K Thiagraja Vs CIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 270 (Kar) also held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of deduction under section 54(1), expression 'a residential house' includes

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house. Initially, the AO disallowed exemption under section 54F of the Act of Rs.35 lakhs by taking view that assessee has invested the amount in multiple units and the builder has not completed the Ketan N. Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.321/SRT/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 construction of property within three (03) years. The ld.CIT(A) the enhanced the assessment by holding

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

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/- or 16.10.2015 and claimed deduction under section 54F of the I.T. Act. Payment was made as under – Date Cheque Bank Amount 18.09.2014 003132 Dena Bank Rs.10,00,000 28.09.2015 605279 Rs.16,00,000 30.09.2015 619241 Rs.16,00,000 Total Payment Rs.42,00,000 ITA.57/SRT/2021/AY.2015-15 Navinchandra

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

house property and purchased a new residential property within one year from date of agreement to sell, even though sale deed could not be executed ITA No.19/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Arvindbhai R Raval HUF within time, section 54F relief was to be granted to assessee in respect of purchase of new residential property. While deciding the issue, the Hon’ble High Court

DHANSUKHLAL RAMANBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

house was constructed by utilizing sale consideration received on sale of land and thereby fulfilling all the relevant conditions as prescribed under Section 54F of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the exemption U/s 54F be given to the appellant in the interest of justice. (2) That the learned CIT(A) has erred

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

SMT. MINAXIBEN HARSHADBHAI MAVANI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer, Mavani, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat. Vs. 204, Malhar Complex, Icchanath, Surat – 395 007. Pan: Agjpm 8034 B Applicant Respondent

section 54F of the Act on the principle of purposive interpretation. The ld.CIT(A) after considering the contention of assessee held that mere advancing amount for purchase of flat is not sufficient. The assessee has to prove on record that she had purchased or constructed a new house within the specified period, which the assessee failed to prove and confirmed

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house within three years from the date of sale as prescribed under Section 54 of the Act. On the objection of Assessing Officer that the assessee was required to invest the capital gain in capital gain account before due date of filing return of income, the assessee explained that she complied the condition of Section 54F(1

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 amounting to Rs. 13,51,000/- on said plot. Disallowance has been made only on the ground that satakhat i.e. agreement is not registered. It is a fact that assessee has constructed residential house and the same could have been independently verified by assessing officer. 9. In view of above, assessing officer erred in determining capital gain at Rs.68

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)

1) of the Act clearly states that where value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received, the consideration so received for the purpose of Section 48, will be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Therefore, we note that the difference between value adopted ITA No.589/SRT/2019 A.Y. 11-12 Pankajbhai H Patel

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

property accordingly. Therefore, claim u/s 54 is admissible. In letter dated 11.12.15 section 54F written through oversight which may please be rectified. The Calcutta High Court has observed in the case of CIT vs. Bharati C Kothari 160 CTR 165 (Cal) that: “The purpose behind the exemption under section 54(1) is that if any assessee sales his residential house

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

1. The assessee was not indulged in the activity of either construction or dealing in plots or land. From A.Y 2007-08 to A.Ys 2010-11, the assessee carried out following activity: 2007-08 : Agriculturist 2008-09 : Agriculturist and income from other sources 2009-10 : Agriculturist and income from other sources 2010-11 : Agriculturist and income from other sources

SHRI SUNNY CHADRAKANT FUDHANAWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIR3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

house was constructed within prescribed time limit before allowing deduction u/s 54F of the Act. However, Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any inquiry or verification in this regard and allowed the deduction u/s 54F to the assessee which rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per Explanation 2(b) of section

ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT vs. LATE KHUSHMANBHAI CHNDUBHAI PATEL-HUF, L/H. JIGISHA PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) I.T.O. Late Khushmanbhai Chandubhai Patel Ward-3(2)(4), (Huf), Vs. Surat. L/H Jigisha Patel, Opp. Nityanandeshwar Mahadev Temple, Nanived, Katargam, Surat-395004. Pan : Aaihp 4025 L Appellant Respondednt

property. In the revised valuation report, the second floor was residential house. The area of residential on second floor was of 96.87 square meter as per the valuation report. The Assessing Officer accordingly provided proportionate deduction under Section 54F of the Act of Rs. 12,04,120/- and remaining amount of Rs. 42,07,647/- ( 54,11,928 – 1

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

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 of long term capital gain. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B & 234C of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1