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)

72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property, the assessee’s share of expenses

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)

72,04,064/-. In addition, the assessing officer also disallowed certain expenses towards cost of improvement of the aforesaid land sold during the year under consideration while computing the capital gain amounting to Rs.1,54,07,417/- The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee was equal co-owner of such property, the assessee’s share of expenses

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 270A of the Act. It be so held now. 3. As is evident from the perusal of the grounds raised before us, the solitary issue in the present appeal relates to treating an amount of Rs.17,08,908/-as assessee’s income from house property as opposed to the assessee’s contention that they were merely recovery of common

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2019, and in response, the assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019, declaring total income of Rs.15,24,000/-, which included income from house property at Rs.15,54,000/- and showing capital gains at NIL after claiming indexed cost of acquisition. 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

72 and sub section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or it there is no such allowance

KHYATI DILIPKUMAR DAVE,DUBAI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,INT.TAX.,AHM, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT,INDIA

In the result, Ground No. 1 with respect to the aforesaid addition is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69 of the Act. 4. In appeal, with respect to addition of Rs. 71,72,077/- on account of unexplained investment in immovable property, the CIT(A) observed that out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- had been sourced out of housing

UDAY RAMESH NAYAK,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - INT. TAXATION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

house property as unexplained and thereby making an addition u/s. 69 of the Act. 2. The learned DRP and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.13,72,952/- to the total income of the Appellant despite the fact that no such amount was paid by the Appellant. 3. The learned AO erred in fact

SHAILESH NATVARLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19

72,675/- towards advocate fees, stamp expenses, and related costs. The assessee also claimed cost of improvement of Rs.1,00,000/- incurred in the financial year 2005–06. It was further submitted by the assessee that he had invested Rs.18,00,000/- in a new residential house property at Flat No. 702, Shree Homes, Gota, Ahmedabad, by making payment

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property\", \"Capital gains\" and \"Income from other\nsources"/, or a company [the principal business of which is the\nbusiness of trading in shares or banking for the granting of loans and\nadvances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other\ncompanies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be\ndeemed to be carrying

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property\", \"Capital gains\" and \"Income from other\nsources"/, or a company [the principal business of which is the\nbusiness of trading in shares or banking for the granting of loans and\nadvances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other\ncompanies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be\ndeemed to be carrying

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

property in chattel and not a contract of service. The decisions of CIT v ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.), KMC Construction Ltd 51 SOT 214 (Hyd), Koya & Co. Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 51 SOT 203/21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.) (URO) and Radhe Developers v. Union of India

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 5 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 However, noting that he had already affected the adjustment to the cost of land acquired by the assessee by reducing it by Rs.36 crores odd, he added the balance amount of Rs.8