SHREEJI ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

house property” after claiming deduction @30% under Section 24 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also noted the assessee had also claimed depreciation on his property, but he was of the view that 30% of depreciation was to be disallowed on building since 30% of the area (which was 1100 sq. feet out of a total

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 6.3. Per contra Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue submitted as the earlier ground was set aside to the file of AO for verification. I.T.A Nos. 330 & 331/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 13 Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT This ground may also be set aside

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

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 282 of the 1961 Act. The AO could have deputed inspector to paste the notice at the premises of the assessee at Ahmedabad. The inspector could have made enquiries with the neighbours , and then factual position could have emerged that the assessee has moved to Mumbai. The assessee has claimed that she has not received the notices issued

THE DY. CIT, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. SHRI SAURABHKUMAR MUKUTLAL GUPTA,, ANAND

section 147 and "show cause letter" issued to the assessee. Nowhere in the order of the assessment there is any mention of some reliable evidence against the assessee. In show cause letter, the A.O. has referred to the investment in "Surya Valley" bungalow but Ld. Authorized Representative has rightly pointed out that the Ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

282/- to the total income of the appellant. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. On perusal of the written submission, it is seen that the appellant has taken the similar pleas which was taken before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the same were rebutted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

282/- to the total income of the appellant. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. On perusal of the written submission, it is seen that the appellant has taken the similar pleas which was taken before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the same were rebutted

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

282/- to the total income of the appellant. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. On perusal of the written submission, it is seen that the appellant has taken the similar pleas which was taken before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the same were rebutted

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

282/- to the total income of the appellant. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. On perusal of the written submission, it is seen that the appellant has taken the similar pleas which was taken before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the same were rebutted

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

282/- to the total income of the appellant. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. On perusal of the written submission, it is seen that the appellant has taken the similar pleas which was taken before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the same were rebutted

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

282/- as interest income, ₹32,540/- as rent, and ₹2,585/- as miscellaneous income. Against this, the assessee claimed a deduction of ₹27,57,686/- towards various maintenance and operational expenses, including security, DG maintenance, housekeeping, salaries, repairs, swimming pool maintenance, and others. Upon verification, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the nature of these expenses

HARISH PANNALAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-7(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2010-11 Harish P. Shah Ito, Ward-7(4) Kinjal House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Bpyps 6480 Q

House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. PAN : BPYPS 6480 Q (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed

CHANDRIKABEN HARISH SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,7(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2010-11 Chandrikaben Harish Shah Ito, Ward-7(4) Kinjal House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Bpyps 5968 D

House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. PAN : BPYPS 5968 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee by None Revenue by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 29 /04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, 1st Floor, G-Block, International Taxation-1, Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Ahmedabad-380014 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 [PAN No.AAHCS9360D] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Parin Shah, Shri Ankit Gandhi & Ms. Dhruvi Salot, A.Rs. Respondent by: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement