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

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

31 Mar 2017 Quoted Unquoted Total Quoted Unquoted Total A. Other Investments Investment property- 186,462,058 186,462,058 186,462,058 186,462,058 Thane (net off accumulated depreciation and impairment, if any) It can be seen from above referred balance sheet that though particulars mentioned in Audited Annual accounts is “Investment Property, Thane (net off of accumulated

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)

31. In appeal, CIT(A) confirmed both the additions by observing that the assessee has admitted to holding of two house properties and has not given any explanation as to why no income was declared by the assessee under the head “income from house property”. Regarding the deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital

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)

31. In appeal, CIT(A) confirmed both the additions by observing that the assessee has admitted to holding of two house properties and has not given any explanation as to why no income was declared by the assessee under the head “income from house property”. Regarding the deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital

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)

31. In appeal, CIT(A) confirmed both the additions by observing that the assessee has admitted to holding of two house properties and has not given any explanation as to why no income was declared by the assessee under the head “income from house property”. Regarding the deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital

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)

31. In appeal, CIT(A) confirmed both the additions by observing that the assessee has admitted to holding of two house properties and has not given any explanation as to why no income was declared by the assessee under the head “income from house property”. Regarding the deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital

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 qua the properties held as stock in trade on account of deemed rental income. 6.4 As the assessee succeeds on the reasoning as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to adjudicate the other contentions raised by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s

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 qua the properties held as stock in trade on account of deemed rental income. 6.4 As the assessee succeeds on the reasoning as elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to adjudicate the other contentions raised by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.37-38/AHD/2021 A.Y.s

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.

31 March 2015 which satisfied the conditions provided under section 54 of the Act. 5.1 The learned AR further contended that the AO has allowed the exemption under section 54 of the Act after carrying out necessary verification and applying Asstt. Year 2015-16 5 his mind. For this purpose, the learned AR drew our attention on the notices issued

SHRI RAJAT B. MEHTA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTL. TAXN.), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 54 F to the extent of Rs 18,00,000 paid under a separate agreement for furniture and fixtures in the residential property purchased by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 4. We have heard

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 22 of the act the annual value of the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is owner is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property”. The assessee has contended that the scheme developed by the assessee are not the property of the assessee but in the nature of stock

VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 22 of the act the annual value of the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is owner is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property”. The assessee has contended that the scheme developed by the assessee are not the property of the assessee but in the nature of stock

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

House Property ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

House Property ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

House Property ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

House Property ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

House Property [as per Return of Income] Rs. 10,34,525/- B. Business Income [as per Return of income] Rs.14,81,24,50,439/- Add: Additions / disallowances as discussed above ITA No. 162/Ahd/2021 (Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y.– 2016-17 - 7 – 1. Transfer pricing adjustment on account Rs. 10,29,60,436/- of corporate guarantee (as per Para

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