MS. SHILPA MAYANK PARIKH,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1212/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, A-2, Atithi Bungalow, Revaba Bharuch Town Ship, Bharuch-392001 [Pan: Aespp 7558 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shailesh J. Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

section 69 of the Act, hence the addition made of Rs.4,96,500/- by the AO u/s.68 as confirming by the CIT(A) u/s.69 requires to be deleted holding that it is genuine bonafide and supported by documentary evidence. Since, the above 3 to 5 grounds are inter-connected, hence same 4. are being considered together. Brief facts are that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Properties Vs. DCIT in ITA Page 11 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 No. 84/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08, Hon'ble ITAT, Pune, vide their order dated 25.07.2012, have allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on 173 flats completed before prescribed time

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Properties Vs. DCIT in ITA Page 11 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 No. 84/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08, Hon'ble ITAT, Pune, vide their order dated 25.07.2012, have allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on 173 flats completed before prescribed time

THE ITO, WARD-5(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

Properties Vs. DCIT in ITA Page 11 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 No. 84/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08, Hon'ble ITAT, Pune, vide their order dated 25.07.2012, have allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on 173 flats completed before prescribed time

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

property, it was submitted that assessee has not received more than Rs.1,62,04,000/-. The actual amount receipt was disclosed and tax on capital gain was paid on it. It was also submitted that the difference between the value of Stamp Duty Authority (SVA) and actual sale consideration is less than 10%. Hence, no addition can be made

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)

section 54 of the Act for construction of house made till the date of filing of Income Tax Return. 10. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee during the assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 10.03.2014, the assessee made fresh claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Relevant part of his letter is reproduced hereunder: “During the year

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

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

house property the source of which remained unexplained. The order under Section 147 was passed ex-parte since the assessee failed to participate in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Chintanbhai Lavjibhai Dankhara vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where again the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, SURAT, SURAT vs. SHIRI ASHESH NANALAL DOSHI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY 2016-17 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 07/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

house was built on the land. The assessee also made a reference of certain question and answers thereof, recorded during the search action wherein Pravinbhai H. Shah replied that he has seen such document for the first time. To support the contention that such document cannot be used as evidence, relied upon IT(SS)A No. 07& 32/Srt/2021 DCIT

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property’, income from ‘business and profession’ and income from ‘other sources’ comprising interest income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that assessee has purchased a property amounting to Rs.6,37,97,760/- during the assessment year under consideration. The source of the funds are mostly loans and gifts received by the assessee from various persons during

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO. OP HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co- operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. In this section, clause 80P(2)(d) is allowed the deduction of interest income received

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHYAM CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Vs. M/S. Shyam Corporation, Circle - 3, “Silver Crest”, F.P. No.67 & Surat 70, T.P.S. No.14(Pal), Pal, Surat -395 005. [Pan No. Abefs 9360 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, since it is not the income from salary, house property

SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

house property located at Bunglow no. 3 Pritamnager - 1 society, Maktampur, Bharuch for a total consideration Rs. 1.5 crores out of which Rs. 75 lacs were paid in FY 2008-09 (Rs 25 lacs each). Q11: What is the source of your payment of Rs. 25 lacs during FY 2008-09 to ShriFarsuram R Bhamwala? A11: I have paid

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.

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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.

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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.

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. SHRI MAHENDRA CHAMPAKLAL MEHTA, SURAT

In the result, IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 06/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 69 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the search action on Param Properties, certain other loose papers were found, some of which were seized vide Annexure-BS-2. These documents revealed cash payment by one ‘MC’ to Param Properties and also cash payments by Param Property. One of such seized material was scanned

SMT. RENUKABEN UMEDSING PARMAR,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NAVSARI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2493/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Old Patel Street, . Ward-3, Navsari At & P.O.Kukeri, Taluka – Chikhli, District - Navsari – 396 321. [Pan: Aiopp 5256 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Tarun Ghia – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

69. Ld. CIT (Appeals) has also erred in confirming the same. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding Rs.592/- of bank interest under the head income from other sources, Ld. CIT (Appeals) has also erred in confirming the same. Smt.Renukaben V Parmar Vs. ITO, ITA No.2493/AHD/2015