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

house property. The Assessee in this regard placed the reliance on the following judgment: 1. Chennai Properties & investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted

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

house property. The Assessee in this regard placed the reliance on the following judgment: 1. Chennai Properties & investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 54F and consequently disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54F despite the fact that the Appellant was a joint owner of the alleged residential house. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the ld. AO in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54F based

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

section by owning more than one residential house property on the date of sale of original asset. The AO, he found, had not examined this issue & therefore ld.PCIT found the assessment order erroneous and causing prejudice to the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT 3

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

Properties Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s Hit Flo Control Water Treatment Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 23,50,00,000/- and Rs. 17,79,50,000/- respectively. But there was no discussion /disallowance made qua such share application money in the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 13th December 2017 despite the fact

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 24(a) of the Act amounting to INR 3,74,74,320 by treating the rental income as business income instead of house property

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 so that income was not assessable as property income. 4.1. Theld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.8,00,387/-. It is, therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. ITA Nos.76/Ahd/2011, 966/Ahd/2014 & 2493/Ahd/2012 Shri AtulBabubhaiShah vs.Jt.CIT/ACIT Asst.Years

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 so that income was not assessable as property income. 4.1. Theld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.8,00,387/-. It is, therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. ITA Nos.76/Ahd/2011, 966/Ahd/2014 & 2493/Ahd/2012 Shri AtulBabubhaiShah vs.Jt.CIT/ACIT Asst.Years

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 so that income was not assessable as property income. 4.1. Theld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.8,00,387/-. It is, therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. ITA Nos.76/Ahd/2011, 966/Ahd/2014 & 2493/Ahd/2012 Shri AtulBabubhaiShah vs.Jt.CIT/ACIT Asst.Years

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SHRI DHAVAL D. PATEL,, BARODA

In the result, the file is being restored to the Ld

house property which remained vacant throughout relevant year as he could not find a suitable tenant despite writing various letters to concerned builder, he was eligible to claim vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) and, thus, rental income from said property was rightly declared at nil. I.T(SS)A No. 207 & 1461/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page

SHRI KARAN RAJENDRAKUMAR ARYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Karan Rajendrakumar Arya, The Principal Commissioner Of 802, Saffron, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax-1, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

house property and bank statement showing the said payments. Therefore the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 54 and the same should be allowed. 7.10 In view of the above, it is transpired that the AO during the assessment proceedings has framed the assessment under section 143(3

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 by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud or has committed a willful neglect i.e. mens rea is not to be proved

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 by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud or has committed a willful neglect i.e. mens rea is not to be proved

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 by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud or has committed a willful neglect i.e. mens rea is not to be proved

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 by the present one. After this amendment, the revenue is not required to prove that assessee is guilty of any fraud or has committed a willful neglect i.e. mens rea is not to be proved

SAROVAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2625/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 13A,Pushpkunj Society, Vs. Ward-4(1)(1), Kankaria,Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

3 of 11 Asstt. Years 2014-15 4 Act. Nevertheless, the AO allowed a deduction to the assessee under section 24 on account of repair and maintenance at the rate of 30% of the ALV. Thus the AO determined the income under the head house property

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

properties were deleted by the higher authorities, in this regard we note that there was no information brought on record that any appeal was preferred before the ITAT by the revenue against the deletion by the learned CIT (A). Moreover, we find that the addition has been deleted by the learned CIT- A on technical account as well as considering

M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

properties were deleted by the higher authorities, in this regard we note that there was no information brought on record that any appeal was preferred before the ITAT by the revenue against the deletion by the learned CIT (A). Moreover, we find that the addition has been deleted by the learned CIT- A on technical account as well as considering

MANDAR KULKURNI, HUF,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

house made by Mr. Mandar Kulkarni being member of HUF in his personal capacity and ought not to have confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.28,76,181/- under Section 54 of the Act made in assessment order dated 23.12.2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 by Assessing Officer II.” 3. The assessee filed its original return