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)

77,03,708/-. 5. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), on the basis of details submitted by the assessee, he allowed two expenses towards cost of improvement, in respect of payment for vacating tenants (Rs. 57,64,516/-) and non-agricultural expenses (Rs. 2,01,878/-). Ld. CIT(A) also adjudicated the issue regarding I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019

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)

77,03,708/-. 5. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), on the basis of details submitted by the assessee, he allowed two expenses towards cost of improvement, in respect of payment for vacating tenants (Rs. 57,64,516/-) and non-agricultural expenses (Rs. 2,01,878/-). Ld. CIT(A) also adjudicated the issue regarding I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019

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)

77,03,708/-. 5. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), on the basis of details submitted by the assessee, he allowed two expenses towards cost of improvement, in respect of payment for vacating tenants (Rs. 57,64,516/-) and non-agricultural expenses (Rs. 2,01,878/-). Ld. CIT(A) also adjudicated the issue regarding I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019

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)

77,03,708/-. 5. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), on the basis of details submitted by the assessee, he allowed two expenses towards cost of improvement, in respect of payment for vacating tenants (Rs. 57,64,516/-) and non-agricultural expenses (Rs. 2,01,878/-). Ld. CIT(A) also adjudicated the issue regarding I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019

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

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

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

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

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 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

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

property at Noble Antrix was acquired by him. The Assessing Officer noticed that a deduction under Section 54F of the Act was available only in the case where the assessee owns only one residential house other than new asset acquired by the assessee. Since this condition was not fulfilled, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under Section

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

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.135/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

house property and acquiring the Plants & Machinery and equipment wherefrom income was derived. The A.O. ought to have allowed the deduction towards the interest expense of Rs. 6,77,22,853/- in computation of total income.: 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of constructing, developing fully equipped retail malls, shopping

SHRI UMANG TEJPAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQ) (INTL. TAXN. & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

77,500/- inclusive transfer cost of Rs.65,000/- purchased on 23.03.2012. According to the Learned AO, the claim and/or benefit u/s 54 of the Act on reinvestment of two houses properties is not legally tenable. The law does not provide for investment in second house so far as deduction under section

PHELIX APPLIANCES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1310/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) Phelix Appliances Ltd. The Income Tax बनाम/ 9, B, Shitalkunj Society Officer Vs. Manjalpur Ward-4(2) Baroda - 390 010 Baroda – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp 1857 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr.Dr

section 24 of the Act on account of repair and maintenance expenses as per the provision of law. This fact is undisputed. On perusal of the statement of income of the assessee, we note that the assessee has suo-moto disallowed the expenses claimed on account of repair and maintenance under the head business and profession amounting

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

house property”, the same cannot be changed into “income from business and profession” in subsequent year. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same addition and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.6 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 24. As regards ground no.7 of Revenue’s appeal, wherein

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

house property”, the same cannot be changed into “income from business and profession” in subsequent year. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same addition and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.6 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 24. As regards ground no.7 of Revenue’s appeal, wherein

SHRI HITESH H BUDHBHATTI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1604/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

house at Silaj against the rental income so derived from her mother. Consequently, the assessee accordingly claimed a deduction of Rs.8,27,014/- towards interest on borrowed capital from income reported under the head ‘salary income’ and ‘income from other sources’. The AO however noted that the assessee is employed in Ahmedabad and the property situated at Shilaj is within

VIRAL RAJENDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19

77,000 TOTAL VALUE 7,73,08,000 Amount deposited in designated capital gain account 54F(4) 8,50,00,000 6,80,96,439 Scheme, 1988 as approved by IT Authority 14,13,71,427 TOTAL EXEMPTION CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR U/S.54EC AND 54F 3.2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld. Pr.CIT noted that