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

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

house property was not allowable as the basement which does not have basic amenities like bath-room, kitchen etc. cannot be treated as a residential property. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT had set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after re-examining the claim of deduction under Section

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

Housing Society Ltd., Karelibaug, Vadodara, valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. Total AGR (Annual Gross Register) value amounted to Rs.3,69,83,100/-, and a corresponding TDS credit of Rs.2,40,000/- under section 194-IA was reported. ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 3 3.2 The assessee, in response to notice under section 148, filed her return of income on 28.04.2022. The return

LALJIBHAI GODADBHAI CHAUDHARI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

properties based on market data. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the assessee’s claim of Rs. 10,13,201/- towards housing loan interest on the ground that supporting evidence such as interest certificates and loan details were not furnished. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRLCE, VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, RACE COURSE CIRLCE, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 144B of the Act. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.20,79,52,000/- by recharacterising income declared under “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” as “Income from Other Sources\". The amount comprised:\ni. Rs.2,62,08,000/- as interest on staff loans, and\nii. Rs.18,17,44,000/- as miscellaneous receipts

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The maintainability of the very proceeding is under challenge before us to this effect that the Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the transfer pricing order under Section 92CA

INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPA RAJENDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the I.T Act vide dated 31.03.2022 stand annulled/quashed. The grounds on these issue are allowed. Decision : Regarding the other grounds, since the principal assessment order is annulled/quashed, the remaining grounds are not adjudicated separately. ITA Nos.2205 & 2206/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) ITO vs. Deepa Rajendrakumar Agrawal Page 5 of 10 10. A copy of the reason

INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEEPA RAJENDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the I.T Act vide dated 31.03.2022 stand annulled/quashed. The grounds on these issue are allowed. Decision : Regarding the other grounds, since the principal assessment order is annulled/quashed, the remaining grounds are not adjudicated separately. ITA Nos.2205 & 2206/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) ITO vs. Deepa Rajendrakumar Agrawal Page 5 of 10 10. A copy of the reason

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ITO-WD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AVS CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

housing project. The Assessing Officer was also of the opinion that the assessee firm was involved in availing accommodation entries through entry operators. Based on the evidences found during the search/survey, the Assessing Officer concluded that the receipts recorded by the Shri Gautam shah in the excel sheet found from his pen drive were nothing but unaccounted cash receipts

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

144B of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2605/Ahd/2025 Page no 2 A.Y. 2015-16 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 24.08.2015 declaring total income

KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

144B was passed on 21.03.2023, again assessing the income at Nil without making any variation. Principal CIT again initiated 263 proceedings on the ground that the records revealed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property (at Ambika Society, Ahmedabad) for a sum of Rs.85,00,000/-, while the stamp duty paid was Rs.6,18,000/-. Based on Gujarat

LAXMANJI JAVANJI DODIYA,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2022-23

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23 on 31.07.2022 declaring income of Rs.5,41,900/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,89,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify the deduction

MUKESH CHHOTELAL GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Shri Mukesh Chhotelal Gupta The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) Gupta Nivas Vs. Ahmedabad. Chandkheda Sabarmati Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Ablpg 9729 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ar : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

house property and capital gains. The return of income was filed on 20.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 49,05,370/-. Notice under section 143(2) was served on 23.09.2019 and notices under section 142(1) were thereafter issued calling for details on the limited scrutiny issue. 2.2 As recorded by the AO, a perusal of Form 26AS revealed interest

NITABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 30/03/2022. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the records, are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee filed her original 2 return of income for the relevant assessment year on 04/08/2017 declaring a total income of Rs.69

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/h.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. PAN : ACYFS 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, AR Assessee by : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee

DIPIKABEN KANIYALAL PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 by accepting the returned income of the assessee. The PCIT observed that in view of the admission made by the “Navratna Organisers and Developers Pvt. Ltd.” before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission regarding receipt of on-money and perusal of the other excel file seized, the assessee had also paid 50% (being the joint