JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement: (iii) Regulating

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement: (iii) Regulating

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement: (iii) Regulating

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement: (iii) Regulating

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement: (iii) Regulating

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that the provisions of Section 54F of the Act are incorporated in the chapter dealing with the computation of income under the head ‘income from capital gains’ and it deals primarily with gains on sale of transfer of capital assets. That it provides exemption also on investment in capital assets

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

15,77,30,705/- and offered net capital gain of Rs. Nil as the assessee has reinvested the consideration in a residential property at Colaba, Mumbai u/s. 54F of the Act of Rs. 14,14,55,783/-. On verification of the claim of the assessing officer held that the assessee already owned two residential properties namely (i) House

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SHRI DHAVAL D. PATEL,, BARODA

In the result, the file is being restored to the Ld

house property which remained vacant throughout relevant year as he could not find a suitable tenant despite writing various letters to concerned builder, he was eligible to claim vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) and, thus, rental income from said property was rightly declared at nil. I.T(SS)A No. 207 & 1461/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

housing accommodation to the members of socially and economically backward classes of people. As per section 40(i)(jj)for the aforesaid purposes certain percentage of total area covered under the scheme are allotted earmarked. Fifteen percent of total area is allotted for the purpose of roads, five percent for parks, play grounds, gardens and open space, five percent

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

15. The assessee further submitted that advance booking was received against unsold units. Accordingly, it has no right to let such unit on rent to other person. Hence no notional income from house property can be charged on such stock in trade. It was also submitted that notional rent on the unit held as stock in trade is not assessable

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

15. The assessee further submitted that advance booking was received against unsold units. Accordingly, it has no right to let such unit on rent to other person. Hence no notional income from house property can be charged on such stock in trade. It was also submitted that notional rent on the unit held as stock in trade is not assessable

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

House Property [as per Return of Income] Rs. 10,34,525/- B. Business Income [as per Return of income] Rs.14,81,24,50,439/- Add: Additions / disallowances as discussed above ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 7 – 1. Transfer pricing adjustment on account Rs. 10,29,60,436/- of corporate guarantee (as per Para

GALAXY DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-7(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

10,93,898/- AS NOTIONAL RENT ON UNSOLD UNITS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM\n1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.10,93,898/ - as made by the Ld. AQ as notional rent on unsold units of the appellant firm without appreciating the arguments and facts placed on record

MRS. SHIKHA SANJAYA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property D. Profits and gains of business or profession E. Capital Gains F. Income from other sources” (v) Thereafter section 15 to section 59 prescribe detailed provisions for the computation of taxable income under the various heads enumerated in S. No. A to F of section 14 noted above. When we compute incomes under these heads, sometimes we arrive

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund