THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

Income from house property". We find from a perusal of Sec. 22 of the Act that the ,,annual value" of any property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax (42 ITR 49 [SC] 1961): Income received from tenants from shops and staffs by an assessee company formed with an object of developing landed properties is liable to be taxed as property income and not as business

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax (42 ITR 49 [SC] 1961): Income received from tenants from shops and staffs by an assessee company formed with an object of developing landed properties is liable to be taxed as property income and not as business

SAROVAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2625/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 13A,Pushpkunj Society, Vs. Ward-4(1)(1), Kankaria,Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

Income from house property‟. We find from a perusal of Sec. 22 of the Act that the „annual value‟ of any property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business

M/S. OCEANIC BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

business income by making reference to the earlier assessment year. The Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to explain why the income earned from various let out properties should not be treated as income from house

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

business income. The ld.AO sought explanation from the assessee as to why income earned by the assessee from let out properties be not treated as “Income from house

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business

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

business activity during the year and the appellant had failed to prove the same. The appellant was not allowed sufficient opportunity to produce evidence in this regard. 3.1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding that rental income from lease of bungalow to Shell India Marketing Pvt.Ltd., was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and not “House property

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

business activity during the year and the appellant had failed to prove the same. The appellant was not allowed sufficient opportunity to produce evidence in this regard. 3.1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding that rental income from lease of bungalow to Shell India Marketing Pvt.Ltd., was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and not “House property

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

business activity during the year and the appellant had failed to prove the same. The appellant was not allowed sufficient opportunity to produce evidence in this regard. 3.1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding that rental income from lease of bungalow to Shell India Marketing Pvt.Ltd., was assessable under the head “income from other sources” and not “House property

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property' and not as 'business

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business

ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

business asset but an investment, such rental income would be chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from house property’ and not as ‘business