VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

house property is a statutory deduction and has not been allowed. The Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench-A, in the case of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam ITA No. 2271 (MDS) of 2014 for A.Y.2009-10 dated June 2, 2015 has held that in the case of trust Section 22 to 27 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

127(3) of the Act, in the event of assessee’s case being transferred from one officer to another Assessing Officer, within the same city, there is no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.2:- CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessment proceedings

SMT. MINAL NAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR, CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

property", otter than the new asset. 4.2 If the above view is taken, it is evident that you have purchased the entire super structure of E Block consisting of 03 independent, units, and not a residential house and hence as per the applicability clause of section 54F of the Act, you are-not eligible for the claim of deduction

M/S. ROQUETTE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

127 of the Act transferring the jurisdiction of the assessee to Mumbai. Ld. Counsel for the assessee was also asked at bar to point out since when the assessee was filing his return of income in the new purported jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel for the assessee was unable to answer this query also. 7. In view of the above, since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

house and had claimed exemption under section 54 as well as section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the claim of exemption under section 54 and section 54EC of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the property sold during the year originally belonged to L.K. Nandwana

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

127 of the Act does not hold any footing as the Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order has taken precaution by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and also 143(2) read with Section 129 of the Act was also passed and served to the assessee. In fact, the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued

GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD (GHB),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE D.C.I.T. (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Him) Of Denying Exemption To The Appellant’S Income U/S.11 & 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed In The Appellant’S Return, On The Ground That The Appellant’S Case Attracted The First Proviso To Section 2(15) & In Turn, Sub-Section(8) Of Section 13 Of The Act.

property in the area of the scheme. Sec-56 of the Act empowers GHB to recover the unpaid lease or rent from tenant/lessee. It has authorized GHB to evict the occupant in case of failure to make payment to GHB. All these sections go on to prove beyond doubt that the State Government wants GHB to function in a professional

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

BHAVANJI JUGAJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

127 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.34,30,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.” Assessment Year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 4 3. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 28.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs.1

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house was constructed on one 4 plot. The sale deed of two plots are identical and sale deed for Plot no.34 does not mention anywhere that there was residential building sold through the sale deed. From the sale deed itself apparent that both were only plots of land, though the contentions of the assessee that two different kinds of properties

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,