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

164 taxman 342 wherein it was held that income from the property held as stock in trade should be treated as business income. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble bench is extracted as under: “True it is, that income derived from the property would always be termed as ‘income’ from the property, but if the property is used

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 22 of the act the annual value of the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is owner is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property”. The assessee has contended that the scheme developed by the assessee are not the property of the assessee but in the nature of stock

VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 22 of the act the annual value of the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is owner is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property”. The assessee has contended that the scheme developed by the assessee are not the property of the assessee but in the nature of stock

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ASHRITA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 22 excludes only those property which are occupied for the purpose of business or profession i.e. which are occupied and used as offices etc. for running of day to day business. Therefore, in the case of the assessee the ownership of properties held is with the company only and the annual value of entire ready to use, but unsold

M/S. OTHELLO DEVELOPERS,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, BARODA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Othello Developers Ito, Ward-1(2)(4) 402, 4Th Floor Vs Vadodara. R.K. Centre, Fatehgunj Main Road, Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabfo 4301 M

house property”. Reference in this regard was made to the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd., (2007) 164 Taxmann 342(Guj). • That section

M/S. SERVASHANTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

house property. We have also noticed that an amendment has been made by the Finance Act in sub-section (5) of section 23 of the act w.e.f. 01-04-2018. However, this amendment is not applicable for the year under consideration. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

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

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also

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

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also

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

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 6 of 12 that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore

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

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, then Section 54F(4) is not at all attracted and therefore the contention ITA Nos. 464 & 513/Ahd/2016 ITO vs. Vinodbhai J Patel -cross Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 6 of 12 that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Bank account as stipulated and therefore

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

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

TEJAS C. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

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

house property, business income and other sources. For the Asst. Year 2011-12, assessee filed its original Return of Income on 07-07-2012 declaring total income of Rs.17,54,560/-. As per information available with the Department, the assessee has received credit entry amounting to Rs.4,05,553/- of his minor child and not clubbed the same income

JAYAGAURI PREMABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Jayagauri Premabhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 27, Satyam Prima Duplex, Ward-4(1)(5), B/H. Hotel Tapi, Dashrath, Vadodara Vadodara-391740 Pan : Aeopp 6814 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2022 सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 13.02.2018 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal. In The First Ground Of Appeal, She Has Pleaded That No Notice Was Served Upon Her Under Section 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short). However, This Ground Was Not Pressed; Hence The Same Is Rejected Being Not Pressed.

Section 148 of the Act, which read as under:- Name and address of JAYAGOUROI D PATEL the assessee 8947 164 HOUSING SOC. 1 SAMA VADODAR PAN AEOPP6814R A.Y. 2012-13 i Date 7/3/2014 REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 As per the list of Non Filers for F.Y. 2011-12, it is observed that

PASL WINDTECH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

164(Calcutta High Court)28, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P.K.Abubucker, I.T.R. 259 (Madras High Court)507, Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhara Pradesh vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar, I.T.R. 83 (S.C.)170. ITA Nos. 2302 & 2366/Ahd/2017 7 . A.Y. 2014-15 We find that the aforesaid decisions are distinguishable and not applicable as in these cases the advance was made

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, 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

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