BGSCTPL- MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Us & That These Four

housing and other activities before the expiry of three years following the year in which such amount was transferred to the reserve account; and the amount remaining unutilised shall be chargeable to tax as income of the year in which such transfer to reserve account took place. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from

JMC-MSKE(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Us & That These Four

housing and other activities before the expiry of three years following the year in which such amount was transferred to the reserve account; and the amount remaining unutilised shall be chargeable to tax as income of the year in which such transfer to reserve account took place. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

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

11. We have also noted that he has further gone on to state that the nature of the asset whether capital or trading asset makes no difference as long as it is a residential house property. No basis for holding so is mentioned in the order. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, pointed out that

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)

4. The assessing officer after considering the above submissions held that upon the detailed verification, the assessee is found to be owner of more than one house property which is one of the conditions of first proviso of Section 54F to debar the person from claiming deduction u/s. 54F. The Field Inspection Report and photographs of the property clearly show

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

4. Subsequently, on examination of records, the PCIT observed that the assessee has treated rental income of Rs. 12,49,14,400/- as “income from house property” for the purpose of income tax and claimed standard deduction @ 30% under Section 24 of the Act of Rs. 3,74,74,320/-. Therefore, on one hand, the assessee has treated rental income

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)

4- Premium fee for regularization of unauthorized construction & premium fee for extra F.S.I.. The income of premium fee is being utilized for development of infrastructure like roads, water supply and drainage in the areas where there is no T.P. Scheme. The premium fees is collected by the appellant in the manner and the rates specified by the guidelines

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)

4- Premium fee for regularization of unauthorized construction & premium fee for extra F.S.I.. The income of premium fee is being utilized for development of infrastructure like roads, water supply and drainage in the areas where there is no T.P. Scheme. The premium fees is collected by the appellant in the manner and the rates specified by the guidelines

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-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)

4- Premium fee for regularization of unauthorized construction & premium fee for extra F.S.I.. The income of premium fee is being utilized for development of infrastructure like roads, water supply and drainage in the areas where there is no T.P. Scheme. The premium fees is collected by the appellant in the manner and the rates specified by the guidelines

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)

4- Premium fee for regularization of unauthorized construction & premium fee for extra F.S.I.. The income of premium fee is being utilized for development of infrastructure like roads, water supply and drainage in the areas where there is no T.P. Scheme. The premium fees is collected by the appellant in the manner and the rates specified by the guidelines

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)

4- Premium fee for regularization of unauthorized construction & premium fee for extra F.S.I.. The income of premium fee is being utilized for development of infrastructure like roads, water supply and drainage in the areas where there is no T.P. Scheme. The premium fees is collected by the appellant in the manner and the rates specified by the guidelines

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)

4- Premium fee for regularization of unauthorized construction & premium fee for extra F.S.I.. The income of premium fee is being utilized for development of infrastructure like roads, water supply and drainage in the areas where there is no T.P. Scheme. The premium fees is collected by the appellant in the manner and the rates specified by the guidelines

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub- delegation of the work awarded