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

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

house property or income from business or profession is a question which must depend on the appreciation of complex web of ITA Nos. 3559 & 3560/Ahd/2015 Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 8 facts pertaining to the services offered by mall to, and for, those occupying the business premises on such

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

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

house property or income from business or profession is a question which must depend on the appreciation of complex web of ITA Nos. 3559 & 3560/Ahd/2015 Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 8 facts pertaining to the services offered by mall to, and for, those occupying the business premises on such

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)

house property which is upheld by the ld, CIT(A). 9. In the proceedings before the Tribunal that assessee submitted that the main object of the Company since incorporation is to carry on the business of leasing of premises. In pursuing this objective, the assessee purchased the land and started constructing the Mall premises. The premises in the Mall

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

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

house property or income from business or profession is a question which must depend on the appreciation of complex web of facts pertaining to the services offered by mall to, and for, those occupying the business premises on such mall. Once the Assessing Officer himself comes to the conclusion that given the complexity of these services and all these facts

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

house property or income from business or profession is a question which must depend on the appreciation of complex web of facts pertaining to the services offered by mall to, and for, those occupying the business premises on such mall. Once the Assessing Officer himself comes to the conclusion that given the complexity of these services and all these facts

PHELIX APPLIANCES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Phelix Appliances Ltd. The Income Tax बनाम/ 9, B, Shitalkunj Society Officer Vs. Manjalpur Ward-4(2) Baroda - 390 010 Baroda – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 1857 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr.Dr

100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 10. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the expenses claimed under the head business and profession were incurred in the course of business of sale/purchase of air conditioner. Therefore, it has not furnished any inaccurate particulars

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

100/- on this borrowed fund was not allowable as deduction under Section 57 of the Act. 22. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that this interest should be allowed as deduction under Section 24(b) of the Act, as the assessee had shown income of Rs.32,46,009/- under the head ‘income from house property

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

100/- on this borrowed fund was not allowable as deduction under Section 57 of the Act. 22. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that this interest should be allowed as deduction under Section 24(b) of the Act, as the assessee had shown income of Rs.32,46,009/- under the head ‘income from house property

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

100/- on this borrowed fund was not allowable as deduction under Section 57 of the Act. 22. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that this interest should be allowed as deduction under Section 24(b) of the Act, as the assessee had shown income of Rs.32,46,009/- under the head ‘income from house property

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 194- I has been deducted by the payer. The aforementioned amount was stated to be inclusive of “CAM” Charges of Rs.17,08,908/-,the 3 recovery of which was agreed between the assessee and “SEPL”. The assessee had clarified that during the impugned year, it had incurred total amount of Rs.34,29,816/- towards “CAM” charges, out of which

SINDHU SEWA SAMAJ,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, AHMEDABAD

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

100 Feet Road, Nature View Building, S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380059 Ahmedabad-380014 PAN: AACTS2591L (Respondent) (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.K. Sadhwani, A.R. Date of hearing : 01-06-2020 Date of pronouncement : 22-06-2020 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16, arises

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

house. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate this amendment and wrongly upheld the A.O.'s action of denying the benefits of the provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend

PASL WINDTECH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

100 ITR 97 i.e. by applying reasonable rate of interest on the cost of immovable properties. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA No.2639/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 upheld in adopting 8.5% to be the rate of interest as directed by the Learned CIT(A). In fact, subsequently in A.Y. 2010-11 the Co-ordinate Bench relying upon the said

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

100 ITR 97 i.e. by applying reasonable rate of interest on the cost of immovable properties. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA No.2639/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2005-06 upheld in adopting 8.5% to be the rate of interest as directed by the Learned CIT(A). In fact, subsequently in A.Y. 2010-11 the Co-ordinate Bench relying upon the said

CHINMAY GAURANGBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (INTER.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 54F of the Act as amended with effect from 01.04.2015, the claim of deduction was admissible only for the investment made in purchase of one residential house, the assessee was called upon by the Assessing Officer to offer his explanation in the matter. In reply, the following submission was filed by the assessee:- “The seller had purchased two flats

KAPILA MAHENDRA PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Kapila Mahendra Patel Vs. The Dy.Cit Circle-1(1)(1) Kamdhenu Estate Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Citi Bank Race Course Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 Pan : Adbpp 3883 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026

House Property” made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s consistent contention before us is that the property in question is jointly owned by five co-owners with clearly earmarked ownership for each co- owner of the said property and her correct ownership share was only 25%. The Counsel for the assessee submitted

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

property situated at Ahmedabad. In terms of Section 54F since the sale proceeds have to be utilized for purchase of a residential house or construction of a house as already mentioned hereinabove, the benefits of Section 54F have also been denied to the assessee for not fulfilling the criteria under the said statutory provisions. The assessee has also claimed

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

property situated at Block No. 170 Paiki, Moje-Samiyala admeasuring 9300 Sq. Mtr vide deed 20-07-2010 for a consideration of Rs. 93 Lakh in which assessee’s share was of Rs. 19 Lakh only. The assessee worked out the long term capital gain of Rs. 9,40,150/- against which claimed an exemption under section

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

property situated at Block No. 170 Paiki, Moje-Samiyala admeasuring 9300 Sq. Mtr vide deed 20-07-2010 for a consideration of Rs. 93 Lakh in which assessee’s share was of Rs. 19 Lakh only. The assessee worked out the long term capital gain of Rs. 9,40,150/- against which claimed an exemption under section