SMT. BHAVNA HITESH RAWAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

302 and 303 (ii) ½ share flat no. A/501 at Pratishksha Apartment Bodakdev, Ahmedabad In this connection the assessee explained during the course of assessment proceedings that the said property A/501 Pratishksha is owned by H.M. Raval, HUF and name of the assessee is included only for the sake of convenience as joint holder and the payment has been made

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

property, there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed. The Tribunal further noted that Commissioner (Appeals) in his order relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

housing loan available to the assessee but the same was not utilized for the purpose of the investment in the property. In this connection we note that the AO has made charts for different assessment years in which the assessee has sold different lands. These charts are available on pages 51 and 52 of the assessment order. The allegation that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3),, VADODARA vs. SMT. JAGRUTIBEN HARISHKUMAR CHOKSHI,, VADODARA

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Roydcit, Smt. Jagrutiben बनाम/ Circle – 1(3), Harishkumar Chokshi, Vs. Vadodara – 390 007. Chokshi Bazar, Padra, Vadodara. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abepc 7231 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shir M. K. Patel, A.R.

property as stipulated in the section 54F of the Act. 8.4 In this regard it is worth to mention here that it is settled law that the provisions of section 54F of the Act are beneficial to assessee. Therefore the same should be read liberally. Since the provisions of section 54F of the Act is a beneficial provision to assessee

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

house and bonds are mentioned in the return of income itself. These facts also prove that the appellant and his partner are genuine confirming party 5.6 One more reason for making additions by the A.O. is that as the Banakhat dated 29.04.2005 has been held as null & void. Therefore, the appellant was neither the owner of the capital asset

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

house and bonds are mentioned in the return of income itself. These facts also prove that the appellant and his partner are genuine confirming party 5.6 One more reason for making additions by the A.O. is that as the Banakhat dated 29.04.2005 has been held as null & void. Therefore, the appellant was neither the owner of the capital asset

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act, on the ground that order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the following grounds: 3 “On perusal of records it is seen that the assessee had sold properties and received sale proceeds of Rs. 1,44,58,170/- on sale of two properties at plot

BHAVIN PIYUSHBHAI PALKHIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2646/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) Bhavin Piyushbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Palkhiwala Ward-2(1)(4) Vs. 302, Shapath-3 Ahmedabad Nr.Gnfc Info Tower Sg Highway Ahmedabad-380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeapp 8972 Q .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr

302, Shapath-3 Ahmedabad Nr.GNFC Info Tower SG Highway Ahmedabad-380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEAPP 8972 Q .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Dipak R. Thakkar, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.DR 28/03/2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

house R and D Centre. This clam was made on the basis of recognition issued by the DSIR to erstwhile Celestial Biologicals Ltd. for the period of three years from 1.4.2013. The Co-ordinate Bench, in its order for A.Y. 2013–14, has already accepted such claims as allowable u/s 35(2AB), following the decision of the Hyderabad Bench

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

house R and D Centre. This clam was made on the basis of recognition issued by the DSIR to erstwhile Celestial Biologicals Ltd. for the period of three years from 1.4.2013. The Co-ordinate Bench, in its order for A.Y. 2013–14, has already accepted such claims as allowable u/s 35(2AB), following the decision of the Hyderabad Bench

SHRI KALPESH BHUPENDRABHAI BRAHAMBHATT,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), NOW WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1990/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Vs. Ito, Brahambhatt, Ward – 5(2), Baroda, B/12, Mrudand Park Society, Now 3(1)(2), B/H. Bright School, Vip Road, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 6Th August, 2018 Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed In Support Of The Appellant'S Claim Against The Additions Made In The Assessment. The Hon'Ble Tribunal Be Pleased To Admit The Same & Allow Necessary Reliefs. 2. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. In Holding That An Amount Of Rs.22,71,343/- Received In The Course Of Business Of Plying Of Motor Trucks Was To Be Assessed U/S. 56 Of The It Act & That No Further Allowance Of Expenditure From The Same Could Be Allowed.

302 ITR 173 where the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held that "So far as admitting additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules was concerned, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the benefit under the said rule was not available to a person who was negligent, non-cooperative and recalcitrant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

302 is incorrectly claimed against the other income being short term capital gains and interest income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that the eligible donation is to be allocated in the proportion of turnover and, to this extent, the 80IAB deduction is to be reduced. Accordingly, he allocated Rs 2,82,01,048 to the eligible undertaking

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

302 is incorrectly claimed against the other income being short term capital gains and interest income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that the eligible donation is to be allocated in the proportion of turnover and, to this extent, the 80IAB deduction is to be reduced. Accordingly, he allocated Rs 2,82,01,048 to the eligible undertaking

ABDULVAHED A. SHEIKH, LEGAL HEIROF LATE SMT. SARIFABEN BIKHUBHAI SHEK,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

property during the year along with other Co-owners and his share in the transaction was Rs. 35,79,625/- ,but no return of income had been filed by the asseseee. Subsequently assessment was framed , subjecting the Long Term Capital Gain earned thereon, amounting to Rs. 32,63,644/-, to tax by taking the assessee’s share as the sale

VRAJ CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,GNR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

section 80IB(10) of the act at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. I.T.A No. 2208 & 2496/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vraj Coporation vs. Addl. CIT Thereafter, the assessing officer observed that following issues have important effect on allowably of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the act. 4. The ownership of land rest with three individuals unrelated

THE ITO, WARD-4,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. VRAJ CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

section 80IB(10) of the act at page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. I.T.A No. 2208 & 2496/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 3 Vraj Coporation vs. Addl. CIT Thereafter, the assessing officer observed that following issues have important effect on allowably of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the act. 4. The ownership of land rest with three individuals unrelated

GINGER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

House, B/h. Rajpath Club, Vs. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 054. [PAN – AADCG 0202 C] (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by Shri Tushar Hermani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.03.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: IT(SS)A No.45/Ahd/2023 is the appeal filed by the Assessee

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. GINGER PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

House, B/h. Rajpath Club, Vs. Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 054. [PAN – AADCG 0202 C] (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by Shri Tushar Hermani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.03.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: IT(SS)A No.45/Ahd/2023 is the appeal filed by the Assessee