ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, 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 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

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 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

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

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

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. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, 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. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, 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. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, 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

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. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, 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

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. 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