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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHORBHAI 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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, even though the construction on the property was carried out by the company Ecom Express Ltd. & Delivery Pvt. Ltd. and not by the assessee. The Assessee has only handed over the bare land bearing No.534/1, FP -10, Jivaba Park, Opp. Rangavdhut Society, Surat, to the companies. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAJESH C DALAL-HUF,SURAT vs. ADDL/JT/DEPUTY/ASST CIT/NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

house property. The Assessing Officer at the time of passing the assessment order initiated penalty for misrepresentation of fact under Section 270A(1)r.w.s. 270(9)(a) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer before levying penalty, issued show cause notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act dated 27/01/2021 fixing the date of compliance on or before 09/02/2021

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

96,81,200/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs.1,59,40,004/- based on purchase agreement of a residential property at Haven Hills Housing Society Ltd., Haveli. The assessee submitted sale agreement dated 21.07.2017 to prove genuineness of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. The AO issued notice to the seller party which was not responded. Therefore

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

96,993/- on the ground that assessee owns only one house at the Oberoi Palace Housing Society in this name at the time of the sale. It is the contention of the assessee that the other two properties are owned jointly with others and therefore it is not required to be considered for the purpose of condition of section

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house property, business income, capital gain and interest income. The Return of Income was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 25.03.2016. The learned Assessing Officer(AO) while making assessment, noted that assessee has sold shares of Khusa Healthcare Private Limited (KHCPL) for a consideration of Rs.2,13,53,696/-. The assessee declared Long Term

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

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

96,000/- under section 54B of Income Tax Act/-. (5) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making disallowance of Rs. 2,40,540 under section 54F of the Act. (6) Appellant craves leaves to add, after a delete

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

96,897). The assessee was asked to explain the difference of Rs. 5,36,794/- and why it should not be considered as unexplained investment. The assessee filed its reply dated 20/12/2019. In the reply, the assessee submitted that in show cause notice, the difference Rs. 53,67,940/- pointed out on account of investment in immovable property. The assessee

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

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

properties which fell in the category of stock-in-trade and not capital asset. Therefore, the profit on such sale was not eligible for exemption from taxation. In view of the same, the claim of tax exemption made in subsection 2(14)(iii) of the Act of Rs.1,21,92,898/- was rejected and the same was added as business

M/S. ASHADEEP DEVELOPERS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1337/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000 M/S. Ashadeep Developers, Income Tax Officer, Shyam Nagar-4, Near Ward-1, Navsari Seventh Day High School, Vijalpore, Navsari 396450 Pan: Aaaaa 9272 F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Housing Society Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 272 (Gujarat) (PB-124), Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 314 ITR 263 (Gujarat) and ITO v. Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. [ 2008] 117 (JP) 542(PB-136) contended that the AO did not have authority to refer the matter to DVO under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act on 06.08.1999 when

SINGAPALLI RAJGOPAL RAO ,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Singapalli Rajgopal Rao Income Tax Officer 34/A Sundernagar, Udhna- Vs. Ward No.3(2)(8), Surat Navsari Road, Bhestan, Surat- 395 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abtpr 0192 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Tinish Mody, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 27/01/2025 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025

96,000/- between 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016. These amounts were withdrawn for purchase of house but since the purchase did not materialize, the amount was re-deposited in his bank account. The assessee also relied on some decisions. The CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and decided the issue at para-6 of the appellate order