KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Housing LLP [2024] 168 taxmann.com 536 (Mumbai - Trib.), while dealing with a similar issue Kalptaru Infrabuild vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– held that where deed of conveyance was executed on 31.03.2017, provisions of Section 56(2)(x), which were inserted by Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, were not applicable to the assessee and accordingly the difference between

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. The Assessee in this regard placed the reliance on the following judgment: 1. Chennai Properties & investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted

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. The Assessee in this regard placed the reliance on the following judgment: 1. Chennai Properties & investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) LTD. [2007] 164 Taxman 342 (Guj.) . 3. Radha Devi Dalmia Vs. CIT [1980] 4 taxman 183 (All.) 16. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering facts in totality deleted

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.

56 of the paper book for the registration of the property. Thus it is transpired that the assessee failed to register the property in his name due to the reasons beyond the control despite having made the substantial payment for the purchase of the property. Thus in such cases we are of the view that the benefit available under section

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 54 of the Act in respect of residential property purchased within two years of the sale of the original house property and the entire Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.5,56

SHRI VISHAL JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,8007- under the head House Property. I have gone through the submission made before AO, assessment order and reason of reopening i.e. escapement of deemed income on house / flat at Mumbai. The appellant states that flat was self occupied during 01.04.2010 to 21.12.2010. In support, he has produced bills paid to the Milton Co-operative Society. I find that

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' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

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' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

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' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

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' instead of 'Profits and Gains from Business and Profession' and thereby denying deduction of depreciation and other expenditure on buildings. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the buildings were given on lease under composite agreement in the ordinary course as a part

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)

56 taxmanii.com 456 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court held : “Section 28(i), read with section 22, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income -Chargeable as (Letting out of properties) - Whether where in terms of memorandum of association, main object of assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income

ISHWARBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI ,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 3(3)(5) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 56(2)(x) read with\nsection 50C(2) of the Act mandates him that once the assessee disputes the\ncorrectness of the stamp duty valuation, it is obligatory on the part of the AO to refer\nthe valuation of the property to the DVO. In view of this, the entire addition made of\nRs 18,10,640/- without referring

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.

house property. iii) Fair rent of f/ie property:- Fair rent is the rent which a similar property can fetch in the same or similar locality if it is let out for a year. The DVO can also find out such value. iv) Standard Rent:- The standard rent is fixed under the Rent Control Act. If the standard rent has been

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\".\n\n27. 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

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

house at Shilaj for labour. One residential property is used by proprietor. Other property are used by his daughter and son. So there is no addition as notional income. The value of the all the said properties is Rs.48,57,897/- as per balance sheet. The contention of the assessee is seen and it was observed that the property income

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”. 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

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”. 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 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”. 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