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

SHRI VISHAL JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property is hereby upheld. All the grounds are disposed off accordingly.” 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee contended before us that the original assessment order was passed on 24-3-2014, and while passing the original assessment order, all details in respect of the aforementioned property

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property”, the same cannot be changed income from any subsequent year. The CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 22. As regards Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 13,75,400/- under Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided

JAYSHRIBEN BHARATBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2011-12 Jayshriben Bharatbhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(3)(2) Village :Garadi Vs Vadodara. Taluka :Sinor Vadodara 391 210 Pan : Bjupp 1758 E

house under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2,75,939/-. The AO, while 2 framing assessment, computed the capital gains by substituting the sale consideration received by the assessee with the stamp duty value of the property as per section 50C of the Act, and also took the value of cost of acquisition based on fair market value

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDBAD vs. ASHIF MEHBBOBELAHI RUSHNAIWALA, AHMEDABAD

house properties which is not allowable . 8. The satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was initiated by the A.O. in the original order passed wherein he had made addition of the I.T.A No. 329/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 6 ITO vs. Ashif Mehbubilahi Rushnaiwala entire consideration received as short term capital gain and denied u/s. 54F to the assessee

BHAVIN PIYUSHBHAI PALKHIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2646/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Bhavin Piyushbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Palkhiwala Ward-2(1)(4) Vs. 302, Shapath-3 Ahmedabad Nr.Gnfc Info Tower Sg Highway Ahmedabad-380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapp 8972 Q .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr

house property, and interest. The assessee during the year under consideration received has deposited a sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- in his bank account which was received from the sale of property (Bungalow No.16, Ashwamegh, Ahmedabad) and his father for Rs. 27,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively. 5. The assessee further submitted that he relinquished

M/S. MADHUVAN CORPORATION,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Project and, as reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order, contained notings of amounts in hundreds with dates and signatures against each amount. The signatures were that of Mr. Vishal Talva. That some of the entries had “CHQ” mentioned against it, one of which matched with the cheque entry in the assessees HDFC bank account , but the amount

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section 50CA of the Act was inserted

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section 50CA of the Act was inserted

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

properties under the head capital gain. Thus in the absence of any specific provision to determine the sale price of the shares of the listed company, we are inclined to hold that the price declared by the assessee is correct and within the provisions of law. 10.7 We also find that a new section 50CA of the Act was inserted

LOXIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the captioned appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

123 taxmann.com 216 (Karnataka). ITA No. 1564/Ahd/18 [Loxim Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT(OSD)] A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 - 8. The learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A). The learned DR further submitted that the issue is squarely governed by the CBDT Circular No. 7/DV/2013 [FILE NO.279/MIS./M-116/2012-ITJ], DATED