THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(7),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GAUTAMBHAI BABARBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Shri Gautambhai Babarbhai Patel, Ward 3(2)(7), Vs 1, Laxmikunj Society, Isanpur Ahmedabad Vatva Road, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382 443 Pan : Aknpp 4848 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

disallow your claim of deduction amounting to Rs.22,05,090/- and add it to your total income for A.Y.2012-13." It is mentioned that the appellant is co-owner Of new asset alongwith wife Smt. Minaben G. Patel and the same issue for same asset was decided in a detailed appellate order dated 31.08.2015. As the asset remain the same

SHRI JAIPRAKASH DEVKINANDAN CHIRIPAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 405/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Jaiprakash Devkinandan Chiripal, D.C.I.T, 283, New Cloth Market, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Outside Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aajpa4564C

section 53A of the Act were not complied with by the assessee for the impugned purchase transaction of the property. These facts can be verified from the copy of the agreement/sale deed which are available on record and the same were not controverted. 7.2 Subsequently, the sale deed was registered in the name of the assessee in pursuance

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground NO.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

disallowance of consultancy fees amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was vehemently contended with reference to the various clauses of the development agreement that the developer do not have any domain over the land and it is the prospective

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

disallowance after placing reliance on the decision of the judicial High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Radhe Developer (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj). It is also held that 55 residential units in respect of Pratham ‘Meadow’ was a separate project developed by another assessee named M/s Pratham Properties. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

disallowance after placing reliance on the decision of the judicial High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Radhe Developer (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj). It is also held that 55 residential units in respect of Pratham ‘Meadow’ was a separate project developed by another assessee named M/s Pratham Properties. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

KANAIYALAL MULJIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

53A, Sterling City Now ITO, Ward-7(1)(2) Nr.Shiv Ashish School Ahmedabad. Bopal, Ahmedabad 380058 PAN : AAMPP 6820 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, AR Revenue by : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/02/2019 आदेश

SHRI CHIRAG NAVNITBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2166/Ahd/2018 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016

section 2(47) r.w.s 53A of the transfer of property Act have been duly satisfied as also submitted by the Ld.AR. 9. On the other hand Ld.DR, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 10. We have heard the respective parties and perused the relevant materials available on record including the deed and the original degree passed

STERLING ADDLIFE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT on scrutiny of assessment order observed that the AO allowed deduction of Rs. 3,95,64,875/-on account of premium expenses for conversion of agriculture land to non-agriculture land. As such the assessee had sold land dated 07-08-2012 during the year under consideration

ADINATH LEASING AND FINANCE P LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memebr & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such conclusion was derived on the ground that banakhat dated 16.03.2009 entered by assessee to ITA No. 1065/Ahd/2017 [Adinath Leasing And Finance P. Ltd. Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - acquire the property as well as possession agreement were simply on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and were not registered. Therefore, loss

SHRI DEVENDRASINGH A. JADEJA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowed the exemption under s.54F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) without any success. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee knocked the door of the Tribunal. 6. The learned AR for the assessee at the outset referred to the earnest deed and submitted that the possession of the piece of land ITA No.430/Ahd/17 [Shri

INOX RENEWABLES LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(2), , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1731/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Inox Renewables Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cir.1(1)(2) Vadodara. Abs Towers 2Nd Floor Old Padra Road Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aacci 4628 K

disallowance of claim of depreciation on account of assets of wind energy business by the AO is also upheld.” 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT passed in the case of Gujarat Florochemicals Ltd. i.e. ITA No.805/Ahd/2017 and others

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHRI HARI ASSOCIATES, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Royincome Tax Appeal No.1874/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) & Income Tax (Search &Seizer)Appeal Nos. 128, 129 &130/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. But it was the contention of the Learned AO that all the expenses were made on behalf of Co- op society who has ultimate liability towards such expenses. In terms of the agreement till the completion of the housing project the work-in-progress was to be computed on the basis

THE ITO, WARD-5(4),, BARODA vs. M/S. SHUBHAM ENTERPRISE,, BARODA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3016/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

disallowed the claim of such deduction on the sole ground that the assessee was not the owner of the land. According to the AO, the assessee was not a developer within the meaning of section 80IB(10) of the Act but was merely a civil contractor. Against the said order passed by the AO, appeal has been preferred