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)

Section 54F to debar the person from claiming deduction u/s. 54F. The Field Inspection Report and photographs of the property clearly show that Vishubag property is a residential house Bungalow. Therefore the assessee is not eligible for reinvestment in a new property at Colaba, Mumbai u/s. 54F and therefore brought

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

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

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. In appeal, the assessee submitted that the AO could should not have worked out notional ALV of various vacant properties since the properties were

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

6– submitted that the income from house property was reflected as “other non- operating income rental income from investment properties” in the financial statements. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee has not treated the immovable property as business asset but as non-current investment and has not claimed any depreciation under the Income Tax Act on such property. Accordingly

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

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 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 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

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

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

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

6%. Therefore, the aggregate sum amounting to Rs. 1,57,43,977/- was treated as income from 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

6%. Therefore, the aggregate sum amounting to Rs. 1,57,43,977/- was treated as income from 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

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

6, Anandvan Complex, Vadodara. In effect thus while he continued to have a house in Vadodara, his investment in the house property was scaled down. It was in this backdrop that out of the long term capital gain of Rs 1,89,77,426 that the assessee claimed a deduction, under 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 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.

6 arising on transfer of house property and investing in purchase/construction of the house property subject to the conditions specified under section

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

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

6 PCIT had considered the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous for the reason that the deduction under Section 54 of the Act in respect of sale of basement was not found to be eligible. The Ld. AR explained that what the assessee had sold was his entire share in the house property

SHRI VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

property consisted of a house alongwith land and not merely an open plot of land as claimed by assessee now. Therefore, as on the date of sale of aforesaid lands, assessee was the owner of two residential houses one being Ambali Gam, Tal House and other being Residential Bungalow with book values

BIMANAGAR CO.OP.HSG.SO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bimanagar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. .......…………...........Appellant Opp. Shivranjani Cross Roads, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 [Pan : Aaaab 4535 A] Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Ahmedabad. ............................Respondent Appearances By: Dk Parikh For The Appellant Dinesh Singh For The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.09.2017 O R D E R This Appeal, Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th 1. December 2011, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grievances Raised By The Appellant Are As Follows :

house property. Accordingly, deduction under section 24(a) was indeed admissible in the present case. I direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(a), as claimed by the assessee. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today