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 qua the properties held as stock in trade on account of deemed rental income. 6.4 As the assessee succeeds on the reasoning as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to adjudicate the other contentions raised by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

house becomes habitable. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that whatever investment made by the appellant in construction of new property within the period stipulated u/s. 54F after the sale of existing property the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. In other words, the investment in new property made by the assessee

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

house property, business, and other sources. Following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act concerning the Vaghela Group on August 30, 2013, a notice under section 153A was issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment year 2014-15 and on December

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

house property, business, and other sources. Following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act concerning the Vaghela Group on August 30, 2013, a notice under section 153A was issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment year 2014-15 and on December

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

property or constructing the residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1). The proviso to Section 54F puts an embargo on the application of Section 54F to cases which are mentioned in the said proviso. That is to be eligible for the benefit under Section 54F(1) the assessee should not be owning more than one residential house

SMT. DAXA NARESHBHAI SANTANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2),, AHMEDABAD

house property U/s 69. The section 69 says that where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, the assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books of account if maintained by him and the assessee offers no explanation, then additions can be made U/s 69 of the I.T.Act 1961. In the case of appellant

SHRI BHUPESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

139(1) of the IT Act?" 10. The said question has been answered by the Hon'ble High Court in the following words:- "As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section

ANITA AJAY SHAD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2. Section 54(2) enjoins that

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

139(4) would be 31.03.1990. The assessee did not fife the return within the extended due date. However, the assessee had utilized the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

139(4) would be 31.03.1990. The assessee did not fife the return within the extended due date. However, the assessee had utilized the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section

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.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned principle CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 165 and contended that the purchase of the property is sufficient enough for claiming the exemption under section 54 of the Act. As per the learned

SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

139(4) would be 31.03.1990. The assessee did not fife the return within the extended due date. However, the assessee had utilized the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

139(4) would be 31.03.1990. The assessee did not fife the return within the extended due date. However, the assessee had utilized the entire capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

house facility and those were incurred outside, by itself would not be, sufficient lo deny the benefit to the assessee under section 35(2AB). It is not as if that the said authority was addressing the issue for deduction under section 35(2AB) in relation to the question on hand. The certificate issued was only for the purpose of listing

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

house facility and those were incurred outside, by itself would not be, sufficient lo deny the benefit to the assessee under section 35(2AB). It is not as if that the said authority was addressing the issue for deduction under section 35(2AB) in relation to the question on hand. The certificate issued was only for the purpose of listing

SHRI VIKAS NARAYAN BADDI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Suchitra Kambleassessment Year :2012-13

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), 9 shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

139(1) of the IT Act?" 8.1 The above question of law was adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under: 4.1 Re.Question No.2 : "As is clear from Sub-section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

139(1) of the IT Act?" 8.1 The above question of law was adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under: 4.1 Re.Question No.2 : "As is clear from Sub-section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period