DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property as lease agreement was never intended for the use of bungalow. Accordingly, the only option available to tax the impugned rental income from the land is under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction under section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act with respect

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property as lease agreement was never intended for the use of bungalow. Accordingly, the only option available to tax the impugned rental income from the land is under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction under section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act with respect

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property as lease agreement was never intended for the use of bungalow. Accordingly, the only option available to tax the impugned rental income from the land is under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction under section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act with respect

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

house property. ……. 3.12. The law relating to penalty was amended w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and original Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) was replaced

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(l)(c), read with section 54, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee-company filed its return claiming deduction under section 54 in respect of long term capital gain arising from sale of residential house property

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 348 1TR 306 (SC) that such inadvertence cannot be termed as an instance attracting the impugned penalty provision in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We repeat that the assessee'smultifolded errors hereinabove inter alia in not having declared only two sale transactions instead of three, not adjusting cost of indexation

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

section 194 I of the Act which deals with TDS on Rent from letting out property. This TDS made by various parties also confirms the fact that the assessee derived the Rent income which is liable to be treated under the head of House Property only and can be bring to tax under the head of Business Income

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

section 194 I of the Act which deals with TDS on Rent from letting out property. This TDS made by various parties also confirms the fact that the assessee derived the Rent income which is liable to be treated under the head of House Property only and can be bring to tax under the head of Business Income

SHRI MOHIT RAMESHCHANDRA KHANNA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2132/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Mohit Rameshchandra Khanna, I.T.O, 174-175, Sunrise Park, Vs. Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. Drive In Cinema, Ahmedabad. Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad.

house property before filing the income tax return for the year under consideration. Similarly, the assessee has also not deposited the amount of capital gain/sale proceeds in the capital gain account scheme as provided under section 54F of the Act. 10.2 Thus, in our considered view the impugned capital gain is chargeable to tax in the year under consideration. Thus

SHRI JIGNESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) by the Learned CIT (A). 3. Briefly stated fact is that, the assessee is an individual and earning income under the head salary & house property. The assessee during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, has acquired immovable property which was converted into stock in trade in next A.Y i.e. A.Y. 2014-15. For the purpose

PHELIX APPLIANCES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Phelix Appliances Ltd. The Income Tax बनाम/ 9, B, Shitalkunj Society Officer Vs. Manjalpur Ward-4(2) Baroda - 390 010 Baroda – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 1857 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr.Dr

271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee cannot claim double benefit under the provisions of the Act. As such, the assessee has claimed bogus expenses to claim the set off of the business loss against the income under the head “house property.” Therefore

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)

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowablity of (Capital v. Revenue expenditure) - Assessment year 2012- 13 - Assessee was engaged in construction of a mall - There was no business income and project was still under progress, assessee had debited administrative and overhead expenses to its profit and loss account of year in which they were incurred

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT INSTITUTE OF HOUSING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

property shows and Cricket Tournaments, for the purpose of which assessee received contribution from both members and non-members. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer denied exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act on the ground that the assessee does not have registration under Section 12AA

KIRITKUMAR FAKIRCHAND MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Kiritkumar Fakirchand Mehta, A.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, P.K. House, Vs. Circle-5(2), B/H, Mj Library, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

House, Vs. Circle-5(2), B/h, MJ Library, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. PAN: ABEPM2721P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed