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

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

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

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

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

section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest expenses against the rental income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources for the reason that the interest expenses was not incurred for the running of such rental income. Accordingly the AO denied

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

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

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

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

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 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”. 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

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

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”. 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

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”. 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

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 subject to the conditions specified under section 54 of Act. The relevant provisions of section 54 of the Act reads as under: 3854. 39[(1)] 40[41

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHANTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.884/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 D.C.I.T., Shanti Exports Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4,(1)(1), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ahmedabad. Chiripal House, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad.

41,51,700/- under the head LTCG and not as income from business and profession.” 3. The 1st issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for ₹ 24,38,019.00 under the head house property. 4. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. PRADEEP RAVICHANDRA KOTHARI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

house property. 4. Accordingly, the assessment was completed at a total income of ₹7,37,66,633/- after making additions under sections 41

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

house becomes habitable. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that whatever investment made by the appellant in construction of new property within the period stipulated u/s. 54F after the sale of existing property the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. In other words, the investment in new property made by the assessee

SHRI PURSHOTTAM B. PITRODA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, RANGE -12,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

section 23(1)(a) of the IT Act. The investment made in the property is Rs.80,22,734/- and applying the interest percentage of 9% the yield of the property works out to Rs.7,22,046/-, The annual value of the property is therefore adopted at Rs.7,22,046/-. The assessee is entitled to deduction/s 24 of Rs.2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment