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)

section 56(2)(vii)(b), though the transaction was commenced at a time when the such provision was not in the statute. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming in addition of Rs.1,89,000/- made u/s 23(4) of the Act on account of Deemed Rental Income. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

property. The copy of notice under Section 143(2) dated 12/09/2018 is filed on record. The Assessing Officer during the assessment, issued notice under Section 142(1) dated 20/11/2018. In the said notice in question No. 4, the Assessing Officer raised the issue of long term capital gain and required copy of sale deed and copy of purchase deed

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

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

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70,50,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act. Regarding the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account of unexplained cash ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 deposit, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee that the same were made from past

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70,50,000/- made u/s.69 of the Act. Regarding the addition of Rs.23,41,300/- made on account of unexplained cash ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 deposit, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee that the same were made from past

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

89,25,938/- made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of ‘unexplained cash credits’. Thus, as per above findings of the Ld. CIT (A), the CIT (A) has 10. examined the each lender and given his finding in the chart as Annexure –A attached with appellate order. The CIT (A) was of the view that once the assessee

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

section 2(14). The value adopted by the assessee for converting the agriculture land into stock-in-trade was the prevalent stamp authority rate which is Rs.1800 per sq.mt. even today. 8. The ld Counsel further stated that intent to do the business changes the character of the property. To demonstrate that the character of the property was changed from

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

89,025/- from which admissible remuneration as per u/s. 40(b)(v) of the Act would. be at Rs.3,68,110/-. However, assessing officer noticed that the remuneration paid to partner was Rs.5,92,357/-. So, there was an excess payment of remuneration amounting to Rs.2,24,247/- (Rs.5,92,357 – Rs.3,68,110). The assessee was asked to explain

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

house property, Income from capital gain and income from other sources. During the scrutiny assessment, the assessing officer noted that Kolkata Investigation Directorate had undertaken investigation into 84 penny stocks and given detailed findings indication bogus LTCG/STCL and bogus loss entries claimed by large number of beneficiaries. The same has been received by assessing officer through 183 to 185/SRT/2021/AYs.2011-12

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

house property, Income from capital gain and income from other sources. During the scrutiny assessment, the assessing officer noted that Kolkata Investigation Directorate had undertaken investigation into 84 penny stocks and given detailed findings indication bogus LTCG/STCL and bogus loss entries claimed by large number of beneficiaries. The same has been received by assessing officer through 183 to 185/SRT/2021/AYs.2011-12

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

house property, Income from capital gain and income from other sources. During the scrutiny assessment, the assessing officer noted that Kolkata Investigation Directorate had undertaken investigation into 84 penny stocks and given detailed findings indication bogus LTCG/STCL and bogus loss entries claimed by large number of beneficiaries. The same has been received by assessing officer through 183 to 185/SRT/2021/AYs.2011-12

HASMUKH KANJIBHAI TADHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani, Vs. The Ito, 170, Vaikunth Dham Society, Ward – 3(3)(3), Laxmikant Ashram Road, Surat Katargam, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafpt1257K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 131 of the Act, the assessee has explained the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs. Rs.5,07,000/-, during the demonetization period. The assessee stated that he has deposited the cash, out of earlier savings of Rs.1,89,500/- and cash withdrawal from the Bank of India of Rs.3,17,500/-. However, during the assessment proceedings

RAVI SHANKAR HARI MALPANI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.926/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Vs. The Acit, 1009/10, Ambaji Market, Near Kamela Circle – 1(2), Darwaja, Salabatpura, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afspm7945K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

house property. The total income was determined at Rs.53,63,740/- against returned income of Rs.17,84,250/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant are extracted at pages 2 ITA No.926/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani to 5 of the appellate order

SHRI HARESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL MAHADEVWALA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property and other sources in all assessment years, which has not been earned by assessee in the form of cash as apparent from the cash book furnished by assessee since 01/04/2011. There is no scope of cash generation from their earning activities. The source of cash deposit during demonetization period was shown from the withdrawal made in the month

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

89,000/- received from Shri Iqbal Sarang, son in law of assessee, who is settled in U.K., receipt was furnished, Rs. 2.00 lacs as loan amount received from Smt. Hanifa S. Popat, sister in law of assessee and Rs. 2,59,000/- has assessee’s own savings. On the basis of aforesaid bifurcation, the assessee submits that the amount

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

89,90,965/-). 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, granted partial relief. While the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,19,43,348/- made by the ITO Vs. Abhyuththan

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

89,90,965/-). 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and examining the material placed on record, granted partial relief. While the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,19,43,348/- made by the ITO Vs. Abhyuththan