VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more of the following purposes: i) addressing and meeting the need for housing accommodations; (ii) City, town, or village planning, development, or improvement

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

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

House 6 DevaDhai Patel Bank of 006906 10,41,488/- India. Salal 1/3/201 1 12.5 The assessee in support of the impugned transaction as discussed above has furnished the confirmation from the parties along with their PAN numbers and party wise/ date wise payment to vendor along with cheque details. Accordingly the assessee, contended that the impugned transactions were carried

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

property'. The only additional expression in the clarification is 'use' as also illustrative and inclusive descriptions of tangible and intangible assets. Similarly, clause (d) deals with the " provision of services, including provision of market research, market development, marketing management, administration, technical service, repairs, design, consultation, agency, scientific research, legal or accounting service" which are anyway covered in "provision for services

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

property'. The only additional expression in the clarification is 'use' as also illustrative and inclusive descriptions of tangible and intangible assets. Similarly, clause (d) deals with the " provision of services, including provision of market research, market development, marketing management, administration, technical service, repairs, design, consultation, agency, scientific research, legal or accounting service" which are anyway covered in "provision for services

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

property'. The only additional expression in the clarification is 'use' as also illustrative and inclusive descriptions of tangible and intangible assets. Similarly, clause (d) deals with the " provision of services, including provision of market research, market development, marketing management, administration, technical service, repairs, design, consultation, agency, scientific research, legal or accounting service" which are anyway covered in "provision for services

THE TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 907/Ahd/2012 2007-08 M/S. Torrent Add. Cit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Range – 8, Torrent House, Off. Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aaact 5456 A 2. 938/Ahd/2012 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. 3. 1634/Ahd/2012 2008-09 M/S. Torrent The Acit, Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. 4. 1725/Ahd/2012 2008-09 The Acit M/S. Torrent Ahmedabad. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.

property'. The only additional expression in the clarification is 'use' as also illustrative and inclusive descriptions of tangible and intangible assets. Similarly, clause (d) deals with the " provision of services, including provision of market research, market development, marketing management, administration, technical service, repairs, design, consultation, agency, scientific research, legal or accounting service" which are anyway covered in "provision for services

KAMLESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO,WARD-2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Housing Society Ltd., Motera, Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-; the transfer was registered by a deed of sale with the Office of the SRO, Ahmedabad-6, Naroda, Ahmedabad on 21.10.2010. The assessee has stated to have taken loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the Vijay

SHRI PRASHANT MANHARLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.08/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Prashant Manharlal Shah The Income-Tax बनाम/ Prop. Prashant Auto Parts Officer, Vs. 4, India Estate Ward-7(1), B/H. Relief Hotel Ahmedabad. Sanand Road, Sarkhej Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeaps 0277 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By :

Section 54 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. Assessing Officer not granted the deduction of expenses for Stamp Duty Rs.42,145/- Rs.40,000/- GEB Charges Rs.2,02,920/- life time maintenance paid by Cheque No. 283228 Rs.25000/- termite charges and Rs.7,89,000/- the amount of extra work of Plumbing-painting and additional work. ii. During the course

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-4(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

46A is called for as no new additional evidences was submitted before CIT(A). 5. The appellant crave leave to add, to alter, to amend and /or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing. 4. We will first take up ITANo.839/Ahd/2015 challenging the order

DIPAL PIYUSH PALKIWALA ,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

46A is called for as no new additional evidences was submitted before CIT(A). 5. The appellant crave leave to add, to alter, to amend and /or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing. 4. We will first take up ITANo.839/Ahd/2015 challenging the order

SHRI KIRIT N. NAGAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

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

46A the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the same. II. Without prejudice to above your Appellant further submit that: (1) The CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,50,000/- out of Rs. 32,00,000/- added by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act. Your Appellant submits that Sec.68 does not apply to the facts

USHABEN AMBALAL OZA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(15), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the impugned

section 50C is a deeming provision and it is not required to establish that the assessee has received more consideration than what has been shown in the sale deed. The assessee vide letter dated 19.02.2016 requested AO to refer the valuation to DVO and as such it was referred to DVO. However, the DVO vide his letter dated 18.03.2016 expressed

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.

section 139(9). But here the main issue arises is that as to whether the amount of Rs. 22,71,343/- was actually the gross turnover/gross receipts of the appellant on account of sub-contracting business with Rahul Road Lines. In order to prove this fact, the appellant was required to submit proper evidence and 6 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Brahmbhatt

RAMANLAL JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel The Ito B-2003, Shreeji Heights Vs Ward-1 (Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai – Himatnagar Thane, Nerul Node –Iii So) Sector 46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra Pan: Abcpp 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/02/2024 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Facts Of The Case: Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra PAN: ABCPP 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.K. Patel, CA Revenue by : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal