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. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 7. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 3. The first issue

THE DCIT, (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MEGHA FUTURES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2848/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

house property is clearly laid out in the Provisions of section 24 and these expenses are not deductible. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant is dismissed and the disallowance on this account made by the AO is upheld. The related ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4.3.2 The other grounds of appeal are. regarding. the disallowance of expenditure

LALJIBHAI GODADBHAI CHAUDHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

120) being the deemed house rent income, such addition is requested to be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the Housing Loan Interest disallowance of Rs.10,13,201/-, such deduction is requested to be allowed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return for the year

SHRI DASHRATH AMBALAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

house property but only on the fact that for the same property the registration deed was made on 10.10.11, the time limit as stipulated under section 54F of the Act was not adhered hence the deduction was rejected. The appellant emphatically contended that it made investment of Rs.11,11,000/- till 15/12/2006 which was not disputed by A.O. also

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

House 6 DevaDhai Patel Bank of 006906 10,41,488/- India. Salal 1/3/201 1 12.5 The assessee in support of the impugned transaction as discussed above has furnished the confirmation from the parties along with their PAN numbers and party wise/ date wise payment to vendor along with cheque details. Accordingly the assessee, contended that the impugned transactions were carried

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

Properties, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Properties, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI NANDKISHORE S. SODHAN(HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 994/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Nandkishore S. Shodhan Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) (Huf) Vs Ahmedabad. D/11-12, Silver Arc Kavi Nanalal Marg Ellisbridge Pan : Aadhs 4064 F

properties were owned by the Assessee : (i) Devji Saraiya S.Pole, Sankadi Sheri, Ahmedabad (ii) D/ll-12, Silver Arc, Kavi Nanalal Marg, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad (e) As per the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act, if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; the deduction u/s.54F

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

house. There were no talking terms between the assessee and his father. In order to relinquish his rights in the investments made by his father in the joint names, an affidavit was executed on 25.11.20017, clearly stating on oath that the assessee relinquishes all his rights in favour of his parents and information about the alleged property was also mentioned

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

house. There were no talking terms between the assessee and his father. In order to relinquish his rights in the investments made by his father in the joint names, an affidavit was executed on 25.11.20017, clearly stating on oath that the assessee relinquishes all his rights in favour of his parents and information about the alleged property was also mentioned

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

SANDEEP HARIBHAI DOBARIYA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both quantum as well as penalty appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 360/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) determining total taxable income at Rs.31,08,120/-. The discussion made by the AO reads as under: ITA No.360 and 1740/Ahd/2018 “3.5 It has been ascertained that, all the sub-heads and their respective figures in balance Sheet as well as Profit & Loss account furnished in the original return of income fled on 25.02.2015 differ from

SANDEEP HARIBHAI DOBARIYA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both quantum as well as penalty appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 360/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) determining total taxable income at Rs.31,08,120/-. The discussion made by the AO reads as under: ITA No.360 and 1740/Ahd/2018 “3.5 It has been ascertained that, all the sub-heads and their respective figures in balance Sheet as well as Profit & Loss account furnished in the original return of income fled on 25.02.2015 differ from

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

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

property during the year along with other Co-owners and his share in the transaction was Rs. 35,79,625/- ,but no return of income had been filed by the asseseee. Subsequently assessment was framed , subjecting the Long Term Capital Gain earned thereon, amounting to Rs. 32,63,644/-, to tax by taking the assessee’s share as the sale

ITO, WARD-3(3)(12),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JITENDRA SHANABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed & C

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

section 2(13) of the Act as an adventure in trade and considering the surplus arise on the above transfer of land as profit from business and profession. 3. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that the return of income clearly shows that the main source of the assessee is from house property, salary as Director

APPLEWOODS ESTATE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 198/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

120,446 sq.mtrs of land even while directing the AO to allow township infra expenses in para 2.7.6 of his order. (5) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to reduce the addition made on account of excess claim of cost of land from Rs.107,27,79,584/- to Rs.86