SHRI PRAKASHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Prakashbhai Prahladbhai Income Tax Officer Gami, Gangakrupa Building, Ward-2(3)(3), Aaykar Vs B/H Ramdeev Complex, Puna Bhavan, Majura Gate, Village, Dist. Surat, Surat-395001 Pan : Adspp 6520 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 23(a) by taking view that assessee has two residential house, one at Surat and 4 Sh. Prakashbhai P. Gami another at Mumbai. The4 assessee has not offered any income under the head ‘income from house property’ for taxation, in respect of residential property in Mumbai. The assessee is residing in Surat and carrying its business activities from Surat

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

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 14 r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. (ii)On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the net taxable income to Rs.1,20,000/- whereas the AO has rightly calculated the notional rental income at Rs.4,91,054/- on the house property

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

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

property. The assessee also furnished details of payment made from time to time. The assessee specifically 6 Chaitali Suril Udeshi Vs ITO stated that she earned capital gain of Rs. 26,15,500/- and explained the payment against new residential asset. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee invested capital gain for purchase of new residential house within

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

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

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. The scrutiny assessment in the assessee’s case for AY 2013-14 was finalized, vide order u/s143(3) dated 14.03.2016, by accepting the returned income of Rs.34,91,530/-. 4.Subsequently, Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdictional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld.PCIT, on perusal of the scrutiny assessment, observed that

SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property of Rs. 2.00 lacs, the assessee earned Rs. 5,87,377/- in intraday trading in the share transaction. The assessee has loss in capital gain of Rs. 2,91,325/-. However, the assessee has income from other sources of Rs. 5,87,278/-. The ld. AR of the assessee by referring the provisions of Section

SHAH AND SANGHAVI DEVELOPERS LLP,VESU, SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 23(3) of the Act, the provision of sec.23(2) are not applicable in case the property is not let out for the whole of the year. 3) Without prejudice to the above and in alternative, it is submitted that the average rent per sq. ft. was for Rs.10 in the area of Vesu as estimated recently

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Property, Business and Profession, and Other Sources. The assessee filed original return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18, on 29.12.2017, declaring total income of Rs.24,77,900/-. This return of income was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In assessee`s case no assessment was completed earlier

TARIT F. DAS,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1, BHARUCH

In the result this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Tarit F Das, A.C.I.T., Aaa-49, Shreeji Sadan Bungalows, Circle-1, Vs. Swaminarayan Mandir Road, Bharuch. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch. Pan No. Acgpd 8543 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property, business income and income from other sources. The assessee declared his income in the return of income of Rs. 21,79,820/- which was filed on 30/11/2014 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer besides other additions/disallowances, disallowed depreciation of Rs. 6,91,621/- and 5% of labour

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

91 TTJ 460.” 6. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that intention of the assessee was to enter into trade of purchase and sale of land, therefore, the long term capital gain worked out by the assessee in computing his total income and deduction claimed u/s 54F were rejected by the Assessing

SHRI AMBABEN JAMUBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

91,690/-. Subsequently, case of assessee was re-opened on 21.03.2012 under section 147of the Act on the basis of information that assessee has received compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of her land by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hazira for M/s Essar Steel Ltd. The land of assessee falls in Survey No. 215/5 situated at village Hazira, Taluka Choryasi

SHRI PANKAJBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

91 (Kolkata). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No.21 & 22. (j) Kindly note that the remaining sum of 6,06,043/- which was deposited by the appellant into the capital gain bank account on 10,01.2011 i.e. after the time limit provided in section 139(1) of the Act for the purpose of filing Return of Income

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

91 (Kolkata). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No.21 & 22. (j) Kindly note that the remaining sum of 6,06,043/- which was deposited by the appellant into the capital gain bank account on 10,01.2011 i.e. after the time limit provided in section 139(1) of the Act for the purpose of filing Return of Income

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

91,240 Un-signed confirmations were filed. Kejriwal Later on, the assessee filed some letters in the name of confirmations, which cannot be relied upon in view of discrepancies. Bank account statement and other documents could not established the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. 47 Vishnu 1,32,636 “D’ Kejriwal HUF 48 Vind Devi 3,86,811 Confirmation

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