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

254/- 19368 Sq. Benecia Highway, Feet Ahmedabad 03 Venus Vejalpur, Residential 7 94,99,205/- 11529 Parkland Ahmedabad sq.Feet 04 Venus Jodhpur Commercial 4 2,14,92,555 6261 Amadeus Cross Sq.Feet Roads, Ahmedabad 12.1 But, the assessee had not declared any income from house property with respect to the completed units which were unsold. Accordingly, the AO issues

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

property, liabilities and issues of the resulting company. Under section 47(vib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a demerger involving transfer of capital assets by the demerged company to the resulting company (Indian Company). will not attract levy of capital gain tax. Similarly, under section 47(vid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is an issue

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

property, liabilities and issues of the resulting company. Under section 47(vib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a demerger involving transfer of capital assets by the demerged company to the resulting company (Indian Company). will not attract levy of capital gain tax. Similarly, under section 47(vid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is an issue

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities 'Relief of the poor' encompasses a wide range of objects for the welfare

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

House, Vs Ahmedabad Near Kalgi X Rasta, Gujarat College Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat, India PAN: AACCC7727M (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri DhaneshBafna, Shri Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, A.Rs. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT- DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 29-01-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

254 (SC), and (ii) ONGC Vs. CIT, 322 ITR 189, that the\nloss was not on account of any forward contract in foreign currecy\nderivatives. Our attention was drawn to page no.5 to 7 wherein the\nassessee had furnished explanation with regard to this claim of loss\nto the AO, reproduced as under:\n"2. In the above context

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

254 (SC), and (ii) ONGC Vs. CIT, 322 ITR 189, that the\nloss was not on account of any forward contract in foreign currecy\nderivatives. Our attention was drawn to page no.5 to 7 wherein the\nassessee had furnished explanation with regard to this claim of loss\nto the AO, reproduced as under:\n\"2. In the above context

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254, read with section 36(1)(vii), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Power to recall - Assessee had written off an advance of Rs. 65lakhs as bad debts on ground that despite filing a suit sum was not recoverable – Issue had reached up to Tribunal - Tribunal by an ex-parte order held against assessee - Subsequently, however

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

254 (1) of 1.T. Act (2) by not providing evidence & material used w.r.t. alleged changes (page 6377) (3) by not providing opportunity of being heard (Page 58-62), violating principles of justice as per directions of Hon’ble ITAT's order dt. 8-6-05 & 7-9-05. No such evidence has been filed before Hon’ble Criminal Court/High

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

254 (1) of 1.T. Act (2) by not providing evidence & material used w.r.t. alleged changes (page 6377) (3) by not providing opportunity of being heard (Page 58-62), violating principles of justice as per directions of Hon’ble ITAT's order dt. 8-6-05 & 7-9-05. No such evidence has been filed before Hon’ble Criminal Court/High

SMT. MAYA K. DHARWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

2)(3), Ahmedabad (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Facts of the case: 3. The assessee is an individual having interest on loans and income from house property as main source of income. The assessee filed her return of income

HARGOVIND MOTIBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD (EXISTING ITO WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD), VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2– agricultural income, as unexplained Income under section 68 of the Act and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income. 3. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by treating rent income of Rs. 6,60,000/- as income from other sources

HARGOVIND MOTIBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD (EXISTING ITO WARD 3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2– agricultural income, as unexplained Income under section 68 of the Act and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income. 3. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by treating rent income of Rs. 6,60,000/- as income from other sources

NAUTILUS PREMISE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

property. Neither of these income streams depends on the security, cleanliness, or maintenance of the common areas of the complex. 3. Furthermore, it is important to note that the rent income declared by the appellant is nominal (Rs. 32,540), whereas the total expenses claimed are disproportionately high at Rs. 27,57,686. Even if some of these expenses could