SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

66,137/- 7. Thus, in effect, the Ld. PCIT has, on merits, given a finding that two properties as noted above qualified as residential houses in terms of Section

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

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 ought to have directed to grant standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. ITA Nos.2004/Ahd/2014, 1873/Ahd/2014, 2994/Ahd/2016 & 2954/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Years– 2010-11 to 2011-12 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the interest earned on North Kerala Project Development Fund

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

House Property) 6. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer observed that assessee has shown closing stock/WIP at Rs. 38,16,12,833/- pertaining to the different real estate projects taken for development. The assessing officer noticed that assessee has not declared any property u/s. 22 of the act. The above WIP includes WIP of Vandemataram Prime

VYAPTI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

House Property) 6. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer observed that assessee has shown closing stock/WIP at Rs. 38,16,12,833/- pertaining to the different real estate projects taken for development. The assessing officer noticed that assessee has not declared any property u/s. 22 of the act. The above WIP includes WIP of Vandemataram Prime

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. PRADEEP RAVICHANDRA KOTHARI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

house property. 4. Accordingly, the assessment was completed at a total income of ₹7,37,66,633/- after making additions under sections

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 24 treating the rent income as 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. (7) Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest worked out on per formula given by him as against

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 24 treating the rent income as 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. (7) Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to disallow the interest worked out on per formula given by him as against

SHRI DASHRATH AMBALAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

66,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 13-8-2006. Accordingly, the assessee was entitled to his share in the property amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/- being 1/3rd Share of sale consideration. The assessee worked out Long Term Capital Gain in respect of such property for Rs. 9,57,447/- which was claimed as exempt

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

SHRI HITESH G.SOMANI,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

66,598/- being Tax |20% of I.T.A No. 323/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Hitesh G. Somani vs. ITO exemption u/s 54 to Rs. 24,25,513/- against 'Rs. Rs. 38,32,990/- 62.58,503/-claimed by the appellant in respect of Plus newly acquired residential house while computing Rs. 22,998/- being Education Long Term Capital Gain Cess

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

66,83,892/- 3)6xpenditure disallowed U/S.14A as per para 6 14,00,410/- 4) Irrecoverable balance written off as per para 7 16,26,668/- 5) Bad as per para 8 7,61,883/- Rs. 5,75,53,262/- Revised business income: Rs. 1,94,97,014/- Short term capital gain Rs. 1,78,55,920/- Income from House

SMT. MINAL NAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR, CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

house property, capital gain and other sources. The return of income of the assessee for AY 2014-15 was subjected to scrutiny assessment and consequently, assessment order was framed under s.143(3) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment and accepted the income declared as per return of income amounting to Rs.1,26,94,100/- as assessed income without

JAY NARENDRAKUMAR THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 64/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Jay Narendrakumar Thakkar, I.T.O., A-503, Sagar Samrat Old Sharda Mandir, Vs. Ward-1(2)(2), Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aavpt8602J

section (2), where, in the case of an assessee 64 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 65 [***], being buildings or 66 lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property

M/S. SERVASHANTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

66,91,723/- after allowing standard deduction of 30% therefore an amount of Rs. 46,84,206/- was added to the total income of the assessee as income from house property. I.T.A No. 1278/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 M/s. Servashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. Aggrieved assesse has filed appeal before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

property? If this concept is accepted, in a given case, an assessee may put up construction of only 100 sq. ft. on the entire area of one acre of plot and sell the same to a single purchaser and claim full deduction on the profit arising out of such sale under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Surely, this cannot

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

property? If this concept is accepted, in a given case, an assessee may put up construction of only 100 sq. ft. on the entire area of one acre of plot and sell the same to a single purchaser and claim full deduction on the profit arising out of such sale under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Surely, this cannot