THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years –2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– doing so only in the course of his business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years –2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– doing so only in the course of his business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years –2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– doing so only in the course of his business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years –2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– doing so only in the course of his business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years –2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– doing so only in the course of his business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years –2016-17 to 2018-19 - 10– doing so only in the course of his business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed

M/S. MADHUVAN CORPORATION,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Project and, as reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order, contained notings of amounts in hundreds with dates and signatures against each amount. The signatures were that of Mr. Vishal Talva. That some of the entries had “CHQ” mentioned against it, one of which matched with the cheque entry in the assessees HDFC bank account , but the amount

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

housing project known as 'Maninagar' having composite residential units. The appellant also relied on the decision in the case of Vandana Properties [27 DTR (Mum) 282 (2009)], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the approval for separate buildings can be granted and that will not effect the claim of the assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

housing project known as 'Maninagar' having composite residential units. The appellant also relied on the decision in the case of Vandana Properties [27 DTR (Mum) 282 (2009)], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the approval for separate buildings can be granted and that will not effect the claim of the assessee

SHRI RAMSANGBHAI BACHUBHAI SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

Section 144 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) and the non-compliance before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings was explained by the assessee before the leaned CIT(A). The assessee also filed certain details and documents to support and substantiate his case that all the three additions

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Properties resolution authorizing investment Pvt. Ltd. in the appellant company, bank statement, acknowledgement of return of income 3 Arjit Securities 1,00,00,000/- Share application form, Board Pvt. Ltd. resolution authorizing investment in the appellant company, bank statement, acknowledgement of return of income & audited Balance Sheet as downloaded from MCA website. 4 King 1,00,00,000/- Share application

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Properties resolution authorizing investment Pvt. Ltd. in the appellant company, bank statement, acknowledgement of return of income 3 Arjit Securities 1,00,00,000/- Share application form, Board Pvt. Ltd. resolution authorizing investment in the appellant company, bank statement, acknowledgement of return of income & audited Balance Sheet as downloaded from MCA website. 4 King 1,00,00,000/- Share application

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

269 UD as per the provisions of chapter XX- C of the Act. The ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that there was no discretion available for the Assessing Officer not to adopt the valuation decided by the DVO in view of the provision of section 50C of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT held that the Assessing Officer

SHRI GANPATBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Housing Society maintained in Naroda Nagarik Cooperative Bank, Naroda Branch, Ahmedabad prove that the appellant received only Rs.44,32,275 which is 1/3rd share received by the three co-owners of land totaling to Rs. 1,32,96,825 out of total Sale consideration of Rs.4,77,70,075. Though the appellant has not been able to answer satisfactorily that

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

269 taxman 208 (Bombay) 3) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kelvinator India Limited [2010] 187 Taxman 312 (SC) 4) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward No.16(2) vs. Tech Span India (P) Limited [2018] 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) 5) Hon’ble High Caourt of Gujarat in the case

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. PAN: AACCS6163P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri SN Soparka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue Represented: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. PAN: AACCS6163P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri SN Soparka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue Represented: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 25-07-2024 Date of pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER T.R SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee

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

property cannot be assessed at its citizen’s income. • that alleged income tax refund money receipts of Rs. 21.98 lakhs, belongs to Govt. of India, and hence same has been recovered fully by Govt. of India. Even though same has been assessed as income of Appellant vide