SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

54F and 54(2), it has been interpreted that the due date of section 139 can be inferred as due date under section 139(4) also. In CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (P&H) , wherein it has been observed and held as under: "6. Sec. 54 of the Act contemplates that the capital

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

54F and 54(2), it has been interpreted that the due date of section 139 can be inferred as due date under section 139(4) also. In CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (P&H) , wherein it has been observed and held as under: "6. Sec. 54 of the Act contemplates that the capital

SHRI SALAHUDDIN H. BAIG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54F. From the submission filed by the assessee, it was very clear that the claim of deduction u/s 54F. From the submission filed by the assessee, it was very clear that the claim of deduction u/s 54F was not available to the assessee. The assessee was given adequate opportunity during the assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

54F of the Act. The assessee levied penalty of Rs. 9,30,325/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 31/03/2017. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission and relied on various case laws. The assessee

SMT. MINAXIBEN HARSHADBHAI MAVANI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer, Mavani, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat. Vs. 204, Malhar Complex, Icchanath, Surat – 395 007. Pan: Agjpm 8034 B Applicant Respondent

section that the appellant cannot be denied exemption u/s 54F in absence of either registered sale deed or possession of the property. The Smt. Minaxiben Harshadbhai Mavani (AY 2013-14) appellant is entitled to claim u/s 54F having fulfilled the condition of investing & booking residential property within stipulated time. 5. Alternatively & without prejudice to the above contention

SHAUKET HUSSAIN M PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(9), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shaukethussain M Patel, I.T.O., A-504, Sanjay Residency, Ward-1(3)(9), Vs. Causeway Road, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, Rander, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395009. Surat-395001. Pan No. Artpp 2101 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

54F of the Act for investment made in purchase of residential house on sale of long term capital gain. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B & 234C of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change