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” and the standard deduction was allowed under Section 24 of the Act was directed to be allowed. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- “10. Vide the ground no. 7, the appellant has challenged the action of the AO of disallowing of depreciation on leased assets of Rs. 3,68

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” and the standard deduction was allowed under Section 24 of the Act was directed to be allowed. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- “10. Vide the ground no. 7, the appellant has challenged the action of the AO of disallowing of depreciation on leased assets of Rs. 3,68

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” and the standard deduction was allowed under Section 24 of the Act was directed to be allowed. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- “10. Vide the ground no. 7, the appellant has challenged the action of the AO of disallowing of depreciation on leased assets of Rs. 3,68

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” and the standard deduction was allowed under Section 24 of the Act was directed to be allowed. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- “10. Vide the ground no. 7, the appellant has challenged the action of the AO of disallowing of depreciation on leased assets of Rs. 3,68

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

section 194 I of the Act which deals with TDS on Rent from letting out property. This TDS made by various parties also confirms the fact that the assessee derived the Rent income which is liable to be treated under the head of House Property only and can be bring to tax under the head of Business Income

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

section 194 I of the Act which deals with TDS on Rent from letting out property. This TDS made by various parties also confirms the fact that the assessee derived the Rent income which is liable to be treated under the head of House Property only and can be bring to tax under the head of Business Income

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

housing loan available to the assessee but the same was not utilized for the purpose of the investment in the property. In this connection we note that the AO has made charts for different assessment years in which the assessee has sold different lands. These charts are available on pages 51 and 52 of the assessment order. The allegation that

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)

68,11,434/ on the ground that expenditure under VRS eligible under Section 35DDA cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) without appreciating that this expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA being post retirement monthly payment to the employees made out of the provision made in AY 2011-12 and disallowed in that year it is submitted

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

68 of the Act, which addition was deleted by the ld.CIT(A). 4. The facts of the case, as found from the orders of the authorities below are that, the assessee was noted to have received credits in his bank accounts during the impugned year amounting to Rs.27,42,50,000/- which was an unusually large amount of money

VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

house property is a statutory deduction and has not been allowed. The Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench-A, in the case of Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam ITA No. 2271 (MDS) of 2014 for A.Y.2009-10 dated June 2, 2015 has held that in the case of trust Section 22 to 27 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore

SWASTIK DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/h.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. PAN : ACYFS 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, AR Assessee by : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee

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

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)

68,11,434/ on the ground that expenditure under VRS eligible under Section 35DDA cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) without appreciating that this expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA being post retirement monthly payment to the employees made out of the provision made in AY 2011-12 and disallowed in that year it is submitted

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)

68,11,434/ on the ground that expenditure under VRS eligible under Section 35DDA cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) without appreciating that this expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA being post retirement monthly payment to the employees made out of the provision made in AY 2011-12 and disallowed in that year it is submitted

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)

68,11,434/ on the ground that expenditure under VRS eligible under Section 35DDA cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) without appreciating that this expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA being post retirement monthly payment to the employees made out of the provision made in AY 2011-12 and disallowed in that year it is submitted

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)

68,11,434/ on the ground that expenditure under VRS eligible under Section 35DDA cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) without appreciating that this expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA being post retirement monthly payment to the employees made out of the provision made in AY 2011-12 and disallowed in that year it is submitted

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)

68,11,434/ on the ground that expenditure under VRS eligible under Section 35DDA cannot be claimed under Section 37(1) without appreciating that this expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA being post retirement monthly payment to the employees made out of the provision made in AY 2011-12 and disallowed in that year it is submitted