M/S. OCEANIC BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

house property which is upheld by the ld, CIT(A). 9. In the proceedings before the Tribunal that assessee submitted that the main object of the Company since incorporation is to carry on the business of leasing of premises. In pursuing this objective, the assessee purchased the land and started constructing the Mall premises. The premises in the Mall

SHRI ISHWARBHAI MAGANBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, PATAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 90/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09

House Opp: Sun-N-Step Club Sola Road, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 051. PAN : AFCPD 0018 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri T.P. Hemani, AR Revenue by : Shri Prasson Kabra, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23/04/2018 O R D E R Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

housing loan available to the assessee but the same was not utilized for the purpose of the investment in the property. In this connection we note that the AO has made charts for different assessment years in which the assessee has sold different lands. These charts are available on pages 51 and 52 of the assessment order. The allegation that

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

House 6 DevaDhai Patel Bank of 006906 10,41,488/- India. Salal 1/3/201 1 12.5 The assessee in support of the impugned transaction as discussed above has furnished the confirmation from the parties along with their PAN numbers and party wise/ date wise payment to vendor along with cheque details. Accordingly the assessee, contended that the impugned transactions were carried

SHRI POPATBHAI BHUDARBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

house property, capital gain and from other sources. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee purchased property at Rs.50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the source of investment in property for which the assessee vide letter dated 12.08.2016 submitted the source of the funds as well as confirmation from

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

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

house property and income from other sources, such as dividends etc. On 31st July 2013, he filed his income tax return disclosing an income of Rs 29,63,542. When this return was subjected to scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed an exempt income of Rs 9,70,59,873 being income on sale

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 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

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 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

MAGIC SHARE TRADERS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 635/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Magic Share Traders Ltd. बनाम/ Ito 101, Akashganga Building, Ward- 2(1)(4) Vs. Nr. Gujarat College Road, Ahmedabad Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad- 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aae Cm9 542 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

159 ITD 554 (Mum.) for retrospective application of the amendment. The Ld. Senior Counsel thus submitted that in the light of alternative contention as well, the Explanation to sec. 73 has no application to loss arising from delivery based transactions in cash segments as well. The Ld. Senior Counsel thus submitted that there is no justifiable reason to hold

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

House of Lords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

House of Lords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

House of Lords's pronouncement in Craven , the view taken by the Madras High Court appears to be correct and we are inclined to agree with it.” 11.3 Further, we also note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Banyan And Berry Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (222 ITR 831) held that tax planning within

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. 30. The assessee during the year has incurred total research and development expenses amounting to Rs. 11,962.75 lacs. But the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of the expenses amounting to Rs. 11,271.35 lacs only. As such the assessee omitted