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

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)

80,000/- u/s 54EC in the subsequent AY 2010-11 for the same property. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking as to why the claim of deduction u/s 54F for Rs.22,55,830/- should not be disallowed. ITA No.447/SRT/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Gemalsinh M Solanki (HUF) 7. In response, the assessee submitted written submissions before

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.

section 41. d. CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. 202 CTR 289 (J&K) Amounts carried forward for years - In the absence of any evidence of cessation of liability , amount which has been merely carried forward for years in the books of account is not asessable under s 41(1).” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. PRABHA PRAKASHCHANDRA SANCHETI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Prabha Prakashchandra Sancheti Vs. 2(3)(8), Room No. 407, 4Th 206, Super Diamond Apartment, Floor, Anavil Business Nagoriwad, Saiyedpura, Surat- Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, 395003 Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abwpj 2151L (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 14A of the Act. The ld CIT(A) relied on the binding decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Gelatine & Chemical Ltd (supra) and deleted the addition, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, we approve the order of ld CIT(A) and dismiss the ground

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

REKHA AJAYKUMAR AGRAWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX, CIR.1(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.356/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of 229-230, Ashoka Tower, Ring Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Vs. Road,Surat-395002 Bhavan, N. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaspa 2993 A (Assessee ) (Respondent)

house property. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. ITA No.356/SRT/2022 A.Y. 15-16 Rekha A Agrawal 5. Learned Counsel contended before us that making addition of Rs.1

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

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. Saniya Remand, Khata No. 169, R.S. No. 130/1, Block No. 145 having area hectare 273.16 sq. meter lying in T.P. Scheme No. 52) for a sale consideration of Rs.7

SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GODADRA vs. ITO, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

house property, capital gains or income from other source except business income, (iii). The chairman of the companies Shri N.R. Agrawal in the various statements recorded under s. 132(4) has specified the manner of earning undisclosed income out of the trading activities of the assessee companies relating to the manufactured goods namely, board paper and craft paper by under

SHRI KAMLESHBHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(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

SHRI KISHANBHAI R. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE 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 SHANKARBHAI R. KHALASI,,SURAT vs. THE 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

SMT. GOMIBEN PREMABHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE 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 KARSANBHAI MORARBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE 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 DHARMENDRABHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE 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

HITESHBHAI DAHYABHAI 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

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

ASHOK DAHYABHAI 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

BHAVNABEN HITESHBHAI 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

DAHYABHAI BHAGABHAI 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