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)

section 54F of the Act. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that even for the succeeding assessment year in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2018-19, the assessing officer has given a finding that the impugned property owned by the assessee at Vishubaug is an agricultural property. Further, the assessing officer held that even

SHREE SANAND JAMALIYA PATIDAR PANCH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

property and life and to help them and the victims in every possible way. 13 To start, manage and maintain the girls' school, schools, female colleges for the Girls education and, to undertake activities for the welfare of orphans or aged women, absorbed girls, widows, abandoned, destitute women. 14 To establish, run and maintain home industries, computer classes, education classes

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SHRI DHAVAL D. PATEL,, BARODA

In the result, the file is being restored to the Ld

house property which remained vacant throughout relevant year as he could not find a suitable tenant despite writing various letters to concerned builder, he was eligible to claim vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) and, thus, rental income from said property was rightly declared at nil. I.T(SS)A No. 207 & 1461/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page

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

Section 143(3) of the Act on 01.03.2023 by accepting the income at Rs. 13,96,44,410/- filed by the assessee. 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

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

13. With regards to legal/litigation expenses of Rs. 4,24,000/-, the assessee has submitted certain documents evidencing that certain litigation in respect of the property was going on. However, no supporting evidences regarding actual incurrence of legal expenses were furnished by the assessee. Even before us, no details/supporting documents or evidences have been furnished with regard

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

13. With regards to legal/litigation expenses of Rs. 4,24,000/-, the assessee has submitted certain documents evidencing that certain litigation in respect of the property was going on. However, no supporting evidences regarding actual incurrence of legal expenses were furnished by the assessee. Even before us, no details/supporting documents or evidences have been furnished with regard

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

13. With regards to legal/litigation expenses of Rs. 4,24,000/-, the assessee has submitted certain documents evidencing that certain litigation in respect of the property was going on. However, no supporting evidences regarding actual incurrence of legal expenses were furnished by the assessee. Even before us, no details/supporting documents or evidences have been furnished with regard

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

13. With regards to legal/litigation expenses of Rs. 4,24,000/-, the assessee has submitted certain documents evidencing that certain litigation in respect of the property was going on. However, no supporting evidences regarding actual incurrence of legal expenses were furnished by the assessee. Even before us, no details/supporting documents or evidences have been furnished with regard

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

13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— 26[(a) income derived from property24 held

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

13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— 26[(a) income derived from property24 held

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

13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— 26[(a) income derived from property24 held

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

13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— 26[(a) income derived from property24 held

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

13) r.w.s. 80-IA(5) of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act by the assessee. The AO while making the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act made reference to the AY 2012-13 where his predecessor

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

13) r.w.s. 80-IA(5) of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act by the assessee. The AO while making the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act made reference to the AY 2012-13 where his predecessor

SHRI NARENDRA R. VYAS,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 23(1)(a) defines the ‘annual value’ of a house property as ‘the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year’. In our view, the Ld. AO has not disputed the receipt of monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- as having been received by the assessee. Further

SHRI KARAN RAJENDRAKUMAR ARYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Karan Rajendrakumar Arya, The Principal Commissioner Of 802, Saffron, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax-1, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

13 March 2020 by contending that the provisions of section 54 of the Act requires purchase of the property/ construction of a new property within the specified time which was done vide agreement dated 31 March 2015. As such the provisions of section 54 of the Act does not require that the ownership of the new property should be registered