SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (PAN: AKKPP9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. J.P. Shah, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Manish J. Shah, A.R. Department by Sh. Prasenjeet Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 12.09.2014 passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

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

56,84,500) (4,55,94,893) (5,12,79,393) 1,52,72,478 1,26,19,031 (96,18,594) 1,87,72,95 C Net Profit as per Sq. Yard Residential Plots 113750 Sq. Yards X Rs.400 per sq. Yard 4,55,00,000 Higher of A, B & C 4,55,00,000 Income disclosed under

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

56,84,500) (4,55,94,893) (5,12,79,393) 1,52,72,478 1,26,19,031 (96,18,594) 1,87,72,95 C Net Profit as per Sq. Yard Residential Plots 113750 Sq. Yards X Rs.400 per sq. Yard 4,55,00,000 Higher of A, B & C 4,55,00,000 Income disclosed under

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

56,84,500) (4,55,94,893) (5,12,79,393) 1,52,72,478 1,26,19,031 (96,18,594) 1,87,72,95 C Net Profit as per Sq. Yard Residential Plots 113750 Sq. Yards X Rs.400 per sq. Yard 4,55,00,000 Higher of A, B & C 4,55,00,000 Income disclosed under

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

DARSHINI AMIT SHARMA,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing\nSociety, Veera Desai Road,\nAndheri West, Mumbai,\nMaharashtra - 400053\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BLHPS5706E\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nअपीलार्थी ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agrawal, AR\nप्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\n16/03/2026\n19/03/2026\nORDER\nThe present appeal has been filed by the assessee

KHAREL VIBHAG V. V. K.S. M. LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

M/S. MAROLI BAZAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

MAROLI BAZAAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

KHAREL VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

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

SHRI KISHANBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) (Late) Shri Kishanbhai Nathubhai The Income Tax Officer, Patel Ward-(3)(2)(4), Surat. Vs. Represented By Wife & Legal Heir Smt. Savitaben Kishanbhai Patel, 39, Gunatitnagar Society, Nr. Retreat Height Apartment, Behind Big Bazar, Vesu, Surat. Pan: Acvpp 4549 G Applicant Respondent

property as per section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) despite recording the submission of assessee, took his view that provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are deeming provision and has to be strictly interpreted. Though, it was accepted by Ld.CIT(A), that there is some merit in the argument, however

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

56,60,216/- on 18.06.2012 and was capitalized for Rs.2,31,51,135/- after availing input credit of Rs.25,09,080/-. Though this crane is Crawler crane and is not being mounted on truck the RTO tax is being paid for the same. A copy of purchase bill as well as receipt for payment of RTO tax is enclosed herewith

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

SHRI DIPESH L. SHAH,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [PAN: AFSPS 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Prasenjit Singh, CIT(D.R.) 24.10.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of hearing: उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement on: 10.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER O.P.MEENA

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

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 06.04.2011 and last payment of Rs. 28 letter was received on 09.08.2011 after approval of Housing bank loan