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

house property. The Assessee in this regard placed the reliance on the following judgment: 1. Chennai Properties & investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted

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

house property. The Assessee in this regard placed the reliance on the following judgment: 1. Chennai Properties & investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted

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.

deemed as the „annual value‟ of the property which though might not have been let out by the assessee. 8. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration in the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions, and are of the considered view that though the „annual value‟ of a property simpliciter owned by an ITA No.4420/Mum/2017 M/s. Saranga

RAMESH NAGINDAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) and Rs.20,000/- towards house property income is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles

PASL WINDTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

property as mortgage on behalf of company to reap benefit of loan could be treated as deemed dividend within meaning of section 2(22)(e)- Held, no [in favour of assessee] words and phrase : Phrase by way of advance or loan as occurring in section 2(22)(e) of the Income- tax Act, 1961.” 9. Since facts and circumstances

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GPSAR HEALTHCARE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue on this issue for A

house property, capital gain, interest on security and any other sources but income from other business activities. Now, with regard to the allocation of the expenditures, the appellant has simply contended that on the share trading business, it had only incurred the fund management expenses of Rs.1,24,488/- and no other expenses have been incurred is found not correct

GPSAR HEALTH CARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue on this issue for A

house property, capital gain, interest on security and any other sources but income from other business activities. Now, with regard to the allocation of the expenditures, the appellant has simply contended that on the share trading business, it had only incurred the fund management expenses of Rs.1,24,488/- and no other expenses have been incurred is found not correct

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

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

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

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

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

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

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

house property”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have

MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrio. P. Meena & Mrs. Madumita Roy

deemed dividend within the meaning of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Similar show-cause notice has also issued in respect of AIPL from whom the assessee has taken loan and advances of Rs. 4,13,32,960/- of the accumulated profit was at Rs.76,53,711/-. The assessee has repliedSDIPL and AIPL are covered by a specific exemption

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs.2,94,70,038/- u/s.14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows:\n\n• For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs. 2,94,70,038/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs. 2,94,70,038/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs. 2,94,70,038/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs. 2,94,70,038/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs. 2,94,70,038/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file

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)

dividend amounting to Rs.4,04,89,102/- as exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance by Rs. 2,94,70,038/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: • For AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 the issue of disallowance u/s 14A was restored to the file