SHRI JAYANTIBHAI VIRJIBHAI BABARIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.110/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-2, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.195/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2022

68,000/- in the assessment order passed for A.Y.2018-19 and did not made the additions of Rs.41,67,45,000/- as made in the assessment order under consideration. These facts clearly prove that the additions made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of sauda chithi are not justified. Hence, deserves to be deleted. The DVO's report further

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2, SURAT vs. SHRI JAYANTIBHAI VIRJIBHAI BABARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.110/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-2, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.195/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2022

68,000/- in the assessment order passed for A.Y.2018-19 and did not made the additions of Rs.41,67,45,000/- as made in the assessment order under consideration. These facts clearly prove that the additions made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of sauda chithi are not justified. Hence, deserves to be deleted. The DVO's report further

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)

68,720/- as against returned income of Rs.2,28,680/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. Before CIT(A), the appellant submitted that appellant had duly invested Rs.1,59,40,044/- u/s 54F of the Act in purchase of new residential house within the time limit prescribed in the Act. The appellant

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 during the year. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not directing the ld.A.O. to give set off of undisclosed income admitted during survey of Rs.1.50 crores against undisclosed income finally getting determined in the appellant’s case.” Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) 5. Brief facts

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 during the year. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not directing the ld.A.O. to give set off of undisclosed income admitted during survey of Rs.1.50 crores against undisclosed income finally getting determined in the appellant’s case.” Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) 5. Brief facts

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 during the year. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not directing the ld.A.O. to give set off of undisclosed income admitted during survey of Rs.1.50 crores against undisclosed income finally getting determined in the appellant’s case.” Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) 5. Brief facts