ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

purchased the land from the Sakar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for Rs.8.50 crores and sold it subsequently after 4 days to M/s. Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.44 crores; that set off of the short term capital gain so earned by M/s. Nikshal Properties Pvt. Ltd., bogus

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

house at Nirat Park. The lands were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural to fetch better price only. Therefore, the sale and purchase of property cannot be held as business activity. 7. With regard to property at Vatav sold to DBS Affordable Home Strategy Ltd. The assessee furnished affidavit of main confirming party namely Shri Ajay Shah and Director

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchase of land may taken as the cost of construction of boundary wall on such land. Hence, in the interest of justice, and in absence of any documentary evidences having been produced by the assessee 50% of the cost of land is herby allowed as cost of construction of boundary wall (i.e. 50% of Rs. 5,25,000/- is allowed

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchase of land may taken as the cost of construction of boundary wall on such land. Hence, in the interest of justice, and in absence of any documentary evidences having been produced by the assessee 50% of the cost of land is herby allowed as cost of construction of boundary wall (i.e. 50% of Rs. 5,25,000/- is allowed

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchase of land may taken as the cost of construction of boundary wall on such land. Hence, in the interest of justice, and in absence of any documentary evidences having been produced by the assessee 50% of the cost of land is herby allowed as cost of construction of boundary wall (i.e. 50% of Rs. 5,25,000/- is allowed

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchase of land may taken as the cost of construction of boundary wall on such land. Hence, in the interest of justice, and in absence of any documentary evidences having been produced by the assessee 50% of the cost of land is herby allowed as cost of construction of boundary wall (i.e. 50% of Rs. 5,25,000/- is allowed

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Purchase Accounts 11,29,170.00 Sales Accounts 11,24,130.00 Futures & Options Futures & Options 11,29,170.00 11,24,130.00 Puchase A/c. Sales A/c. 8.3. From the above there remains no dispute to the fact that the assessee carried on its business activities in the immediate previous assessment year i.e. 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2010-11 but in between

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Purchase Accounts 11,29,170.00 Sales Accounts 11,24,130.00 Futures & Options Futures & Options 11,29,170.00 11,24,130.00 Puchase A/c. Sales A/c. 8.3. From the above there remains no dispute to the fact that the assessee carried on its business activities in the immediate previous assessment year i.e. 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2010-11 but in between

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Purchase Accounts 11,29,170.00 Sales Accounts 11,24,130.00 Futures & Options Futures & Options 11,29,170.00 11,24,130.00 Puchase A/c. Sales A/c. 8.3. From the above there remains no dispute to the fact that the assessee carried on its business activities in the immediate previous assessment year i.e. 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2010-11 but in between

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

house, he will not be entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act. Therefore, the deduction under Section 54F of the Act as claimed by the assessee was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The facts of the cases relied upon by the assessee are found to be totally different from the facts of the present case and, therefore

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. (7) Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest worked out on per formula given by him as against the amount worked

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. (7) Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest worked out on per formula given by him as against the amount worked

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchase of plot for construction of one new asset i.e. residential house, he is not entitled to exemption for another house u/s 54F of the Act, still appellant has claimed it in Return of Income which prove beyond doubt that appellant has willfully claimed higher exemption which are not provided in Income tax Act. (iii) The appellant has claimed cost

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

purchase of goods from M/s.Laxmi Enterprise as bogus. Thus the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 11. The second ground namely rent paid to the furnished residential accommodation. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% is on adhoc basis. There are various factors in valuing rent of a property namely the location, facilities like Garden

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

purchase of goods from M/s.Laxmi Enterprise as bogus. Thus the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 11. The second ground namely rent paid to the furnished residential accommodation. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% is on adhoc basis. There are various factors in valuing rent of a property namely the location, facilities like Garden

PHELIX APPLIANCES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Phelix Appliances Ltd. The Income Tax बनाम/ 9, B, Shitalkunj Society Officer Vs. Manjalpur Ward-4(2) Baroda - 390 010 Baroda – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 1857 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr.Dr

purchase of Air Conditioner. Therefore, it has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Assessing Officer disagreed with the submission of the assessee by observing that the assessee has tried to claim the double benefit of the expenses under the heads “house property” as well as “business and profession” which is not allowable under the provisions

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that