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

properties, therefore, deduction under Section 54F of the Act is not allowable. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish reply on or before 18/11/2019. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply has been received from the assessee, therefore, another opportunity to furnish reply to the show cause notice was given to the assessee by 26/11/2019. The Assessing Officer further

HEMANT ISHWARLAL DESAI,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Hemant Ishwarlal Desai Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(1) 305-306, Mahima Heights, Nr. Shardayatan Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat. School, Chandani Chowk, Surat-395007. Pan/Gir No.Abkpd0745Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Dr)

House Property and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs.1,10,56,427/-. Notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the claim of the assessee was declined because the Section 54 of the Act allows to purchase one residential property. Accordingly, 50% investment in sum of Rs.55,28,214/- was disallowed and added

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

3. I did not hold more than one residential property (an affidavit to the same is attached herewith). Therefore, I am eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F. explanations with requisite evidences for the properties listed in your notice is attached herewith, kindly accept the same. ITA No.120/SRT/2022 A.Y.17-18 Dineshchandra N Upadhyay 4. I had acquired/purchased new residential property within time

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

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)

3. Before CIT(A), the appellant submitted that appellant had duly invested Rs.1,59,40,044/- u/s 54F of the Act in purchase of new residential house within the time limit prescribed in the Act. The appellant has purchased property at Haven Hills Housing Society for a consideration of Rs.2,65,30,000/- vide Kabja Sahit no Vechan Karar (sale

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

property and received Rs. 1.13 crore as his share. The assessee apart from claiming indexation cost and deduction under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), also claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act of Rs. 55.00 lacs. The assessee was asked to substantiate the claim/deduction of Section 54F of the Act. The assessee

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

property and on the other hand, 3 Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai Mavani (AY 2013-14) she submitted that once the amount was realised from the firm, she will invest in purchase of new residential house immediately. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO denied the claim under section 54F

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 SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

property on or before 31.3.2008, that is within extended period of limitation of filing of return. Only a sum of Rs.24 lacs was paid out of total sale consideration of Rs. Two Crores on 23.4.2008, though possession was delivered to the assessee on execution of the power of attorney on 30.3.2008. Since the assessee, has acquired a residential house before

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)

3) of the Act. After that, assessee has sold his remaining land. Therefore, Capital Gain from both the transactions cannot be covered as business income. We note that the word "business" has been defined under section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature

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’).

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are stated in brief. The assessee before us is an Individual. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee with other co-owner sold property being agricultural land (S.N. 25/3 at Bardoli, Surat] for declared consideration of Rs.1,39,50,000/- on 12.10.2011. Assessee was having 50% share in the said

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

3) of the Act was finalized on 24.11.2017 accepting return of income. 4. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat (in short “ld. PCIT”], exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On verification of details, it was noticed by ld PCIT that assessee had sold an immovable property (a land situated at Vill

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)

3. At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.5 raised by him, therefore, we dismiss Ground No.5 as “not pressed” by the assessee. 4. Now we shall take assessee’s grounds one-by-one. Ground No.1 relates to sale consideration as per provision of Section

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/- was disallowed and added

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

property at Ahmedabad. Booking money paid 14/05/2012 Rs. 5,00,000/- Amounts paid in installation 1 26/06/2012 Rs. 5,00,000/- Amounts paid in installation 2 21/08/2012 Rs. 3,00,000/- Amounts paid in installation 3 29/10/2012 Rs. 4,00,000/- Amounts paid in installation 4 01/11/2012 Rs. 1,00,000/- Amounts paid in installation 5 12/01/2012

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

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 and purchase a new house against those sale consideration, the capital gains arising