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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property’ instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building  Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund  Disallowance of contribution to Employee’s Recreation (BOHO Club)  Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

House Property' instead of “business income” and disallowance of depreciation on building\n• Disallowance of deduction of interest paid to North Kerala Project Development Fund\n• Disallowance of contribution to Employee's Recreation (BOHO Club)\n• Disallowance of payment of monthly benefit to employees under VRS scheme after retirement – Section 35DDA, Section 37

SHRI NARENDRA R. VYAS,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37,668/), loss from house property (Rs. (-)7,69,954/-) and income from other sources (Rs. 17,869/-). During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO enquired into the loss of Rs. (-)7,69,954/- claimed under the head house property and asked the assessee to produce copies of evidences and materials in respect of the same. The assessee

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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

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

37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and 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

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”. 27. The next issue for consideration is before us whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in allowing the claim of depreciation in respect of other assets leased out by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the assets have