RAVI MEEMROT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. MEHUL VINUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4, SURAT, SURAT vs. CHATURBHAI MANUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. BHARTIBEN BHOLABHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, SURAT, SURAT vs. ANKUR BHOLABHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. ANKIT BHOLABHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. VIPULKUMAR MANUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. RAHULKUMAR VINUBHAI RADADIYA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. PARSHOTTAMBHAI BACHUBHAI RADADIA, SURAT

In the result, addition u/s 69A is set aside to the file of AO and addition of income from house property as business income is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Mehul Vinubhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, 101, Mangal Deep Apartment, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Kapodara Road, Om Nagar, Parvat Surat-395 001 Patia, Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajgpr 7928 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ankit Bholabhai Radadiya बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Plot No.07, Adarsh Society, Nr. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Surat-395 001 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aztpr 2029 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.971/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Parshottambhai Bachubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat, Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 41/42 Om Nagar Society, Nr Puna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Octroi Naka Parvat Patiya, Surat- 395 001 395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpr 3605 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.973/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Rahulkumar Vinubhai बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle – 4, Surat Radadiya Vs. Room No.508, Aaykar 45, Saifee Co-Op. Housing Society

77,275/- as income from house property despite the fact that any income under the head house property, the property involved must consist of building and land appurtenant thereto, however the assessee has handed over bare land to Ecom Express Limited and Delivery Pvt. Ltd., all the construction thereon has been done by the lessee. (iv) On the facts

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

property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds. The first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act specifies the quantum of investment and it states that the investment so made on or after 1.4.2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does

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

KIRIT BABUBHAI JHAVERI,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the of cost of Rs

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirit Babubhai Jhaveri, Vs. Acit, 22, Zaveri Bungalow, Opp – Circle – 2(2), Meghna Park, City Light Road, Surat Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpz4942P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 13.11.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, “the CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2017. 2. Grounds

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

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

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

77,118 Pancham profession. Heights flat Given to own office staff as rent free accommodation. Flat DVFF25 Rented Tenant (rent Rent 12,000 is not received agreement, since many Municipal years) Corporation monthly rent Bill. Rs.165 Property Residence Self Municipal 2,07,875 5/1203 Corporation Bill. Affidavit Property Commercial Wife’s shop Registration 5/1208 Property is used certificate

JAYANTIBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. WARD NO. 1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee succeeds

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

house property from Rs. (-)73,845/- to Rs. (-)1,77,000/- on account of interest payable on borrowed capital. The gross total income reduced by Rs. 11,54,2107- due to these two reasons. The AO has assessed the income as per original return. There is no detection of any concealed or misreporting from the appellant found by AO. This

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE RAM DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1841/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S Shree Ram Developers, Of Income Tax, Central “Shrushti Row House”, Circle-2, Surat. Kosad, Surat 394 107. [Pan: Abkfs 4321 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin K.Parekh – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 08.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat Dated 11.04.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S.69A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Spite Of The Fact That Shri Ankurbhai Babariya, One Of The Trustworthy Person Of Shri Jayantibhai Babariay, A Partner Of M/S Shree Ram Developers Had Explained That Seized Documents From His Premise Are Related To Shrusti Row House Maintained By Him Which Was Later On Also Admitted By Him In His Statement On Oath & This Project Was Developed By The Assessee Firm I.E. M/S Shree Ram Developers. Also, There Was No Denial That On Money Has Been Seized In The Shrusti Row House Project. [2] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred To Held The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Dcit Vs. Shree Ram Developers /

property. A search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Shri Ankur Babariya at 20, Ram Krupa Society, Saroli Road, Puna Gaon, Surat on 17.07.2012. From his premises, certain papers in the form of ledger accounts were seized as Annexure –A/1, A/3 and A/5. Shri Ankurbhai Gordhanbhai Babariya was working with the partners

NITABEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section

SHRI JAMUBHAI KALYANBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

property acquired was a 'capital asset' as the words 'which has a population of not less than ten thousand' In section 2(14) (iii) (a) would qualify only 'the municipality or cantonment and not the expression 'area', and, therefore, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land In question could not be exempted under section