THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

Properties, I hold that Pratham Meadows consisting of 55 residential units is a separate project developed by another assessee and further hold that the Appellant firm is entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the 103 residential units in 'Pratham Vista' project which fulfils the criteria prescribed as to the size of the plot, the built

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Properties, I hold that Pratham Meadows consisting of 55 residential units is a separate project developed by another assessee and further hold that the Appellant firm is entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of the 103 residential units in 'Pratham Vista' project which fulfils the criteria prescribed as to the size of the plot, the built

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.

156 Taxman 37 (Mag)], Jammu Development Authority Vs. CIT [(2012) 23 taxmann.com 343 (Asr)] and Entertainment Society of Goa vs. CIT [(2013) 34 taxmann.com 210 (Panjim)]. He was thus of the view as follows:- “6. Thus, the submission of the assessee that, the assessee is carrying on the same nature of activity and same nature of income and therefore

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. RAEVA PARIKH TRUST,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

house within two years, the claim under Section 54 is permissible since the trustee is to be assessed in the like manner and to the same extent as provided in section 161. [Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna V/s. CIT 177 ITR 275 (SC)]. 6.9 The principle of like manner and to the same extent has been decided

SHRI AMRUTBHAI ATMARAMBHAI PATEL, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no 1 of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose, ground no

property. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant part of the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- “5. I have perused the facts of the case as enumerated by the A.O. and as submitted by the appellant. After careful consideration

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

156 tagging the script of Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. as penny script without carrying out proper inquiries. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not set a siding the assessment as per Section 251(l)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/or

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,SATELLITE vs. WARD 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

156 tagging the script of Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. as penny script without carrying out proper inquiries. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not set a siding the assessment as per Section 251(l)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/or

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

156 tagging the script of Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. as penny script without carrying out proper inquiries. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not set a siding the assessment as per Section 251(l)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex parte under section 144. 4.2 That in the law and/or

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

156\ntagging the script of Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. as penny script without carrying out\nproper inquiries.\n4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not set a\nsiding the assessment as per Section 251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex\nparte under section 144.\n4.2 That in the law and/or

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUSTUFAMIYA HUSSENMIYAN SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property & income from other sources. The assessee filed original return on 16.12.2020 u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 1,25,74,590/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.11.2021. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of MHS Group

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MUSTUFAMIYA HUSSENMIYAN SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

house property & income from other sources. The assessee filed original return on 16.12.2020 u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 1,25,74,590/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.11.2021. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of MHS Group

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHAIKH WIFE & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHAIKH WIFE & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHEIKH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHEIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHEIK LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHEIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHEIKH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHEIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FARIDABANU FARIDMIYA SHAIKH WIFE & LEGAL HEIR OF LATE FARIDMIYA HUSSENMIYA SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property and income from other sources. For the asst. year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 16.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.44,19,940/-. The assessee died on 06-05-2021 and is represented by his wife as the Legal representative. There was a search action u/s.132

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

house property at Rs.9,036/-, income ITA Nos. 933 & 1313/Ahd/2016 3 . A.Y. 1999-2000 from other sources at Rs.12,35,176/- and business loss of Rs.30,43,96,755/-. In the order passed u/s.143(3), several additions/disallowances were made and the income was assessed at a loss of Rs,27,07,64,210/-. 4. So far first ground is concerned