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)

8. Per contra, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Field Inspection carried out by the Department and the photographs is reproduced in the assessment order clearly depict that there is a residential house namely a bungalow in the property which is habitable in nature, other than the one Raipura House. I.T.A No. 1443/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

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

8 DCIT vs. Shri Dhaval D. Patel property in terms of provisions of section 23(1)(c), whereas the Assessing Officer has determined annual value in terms of provisions of section 23(1)(a). According to the Assessing Officer, in order to apply provisions of section 23(1)(c), property must be let out during the previous year

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

8– property”. The Courts have held that whether the income earned from property would qualify as business income or income from house property would primarily depend upon the objects / main business of the assessee company. If the assessee company is primarily engaged in the business of real estate / construction of which letting out properties on rent, alongwith facilities part

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

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 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

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

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

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

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

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

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

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

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

House Income Tax (Exemptions), 78, Race Course, Circle-2, Ahmedabad Vadodara, 390007 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAAB1410E Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/ D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 13-06-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10-07-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order

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