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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai

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.

65,898.00 which was allowed by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. However, the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act, on perusal of the assessment records, found that the conditions as specified under section 54 of the Act for claiming the exemption of the long-term capital gain have not been

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

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

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

65,00,000.00 lakhs and Rs. 3,40,20,000.00 respectively aggregating to Rs. 4,05,20,000.00 only. 4.2 Under the scheme of the provisions of section 54 of the Act, the assessee was to utilize the amount of capital gain aggregating to Rs. 4,05,20,000.00 for the construction of the residential property within a period

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

property situated at Ahmedabad. In terms of Section 54F since the sale proceeds have to be utilized for purchase of a residential house or construction of a house as already mentioned hereinabove, the benefits of Section 54F have also been denied to the assessee for not fulfilling the criteria under the said statutory provisions. The assessee has also claimed

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

MANDAR KULKURNI, HUF,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

house made by Mr. Mandar Kulkarni being member of HUF in his personal capacity and ought not to have confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs.28,76,181/- under Section 54 of the Act made in assessment order dated 23.12.2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 by Assessing Officer II.” 3. The assessee filed its original return

SURESHBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL,VADODARA vs. ITO - WARD 1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 255-256/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-13 Sureshbhai Prabhudas Patel, D.C.I.T. Opp Parbadi Padra Road, Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Samiyala Village, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390002. Pan: Atypp6249H

65,000/- only. ITA nos.255-256/AHD/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 3 4.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee along with other four co-owner transferred a land property situated at Block No. 170 Paiki, Moje-Samiyala admeasuring 9300 Sq. Mtr vide deed 20-07-2010 for a consideration of Rs. 93 Lakh in which assessee