ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

5% of the land area). Even if the property Vishubag is treated as a "farm house" and the alleged said "bungalow for the Shroff family" at the property at Vishubag is held as a "residential house", the issue is whether it is capable of being treated as residential house for the purpose of Section

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

house property. 5. Ground No. 5 - Initiation of penalty proceedings Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– 5.1 The learned PCIT has erred in directing the learned AO to initiate the penalty proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal before your Honour's in the interest

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SHRI DHAVAL D. PATEL,, BARODA

In the result, the file is being restored to the Ld

section 24, the net income from house property of " 63,37,765/-was added to the total income of the assessee. I.T(SS)A No. 207 & 1461/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. 4 DCIT vs. Shri Dhaval D. Patel 5

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

houses in India for residential purposes and 67[which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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 and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that provision of subsection (5) of section

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 and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that provision of subsection (5) of section

SAROVAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2625/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 13A,Pushpkunj Society, Vs. Ward-4(1)(1), Kankaria,Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

section 23 of the Act in respect of the properties held as stock in trade. It is because the assessee did not use such properties for its business purposes/operations. Page 4 of 11 Asstt. Years 2014-15 5 3.4 Similarly, Ld. CIT (A) observed that merely receipt of an advance against the property to sell does not debar the assessee

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

house. On the basis of this line of reasoning, the Assessing Officer declined deduction under 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 24b of the Income tax act. “income chargeable under the had “income from house property” shall be computed after making the following deduction, namely:- (a) A sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value: (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such