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)

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

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)

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 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 VIJAYBHAI HATHISING SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

79,796/- u/s. 54F of the Act on purchase of new residential house. However on perusal of statement of fixed assets being part of balance sheet for the financial year 2014-15, the assessee was the owner of the two residential houses namely one at Ambli Gam, Tal House with book value of Rs. 15,73,000/- and another Residential

M/S. OCEANIC BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

house property which is upheld by the ld, CIT(A). 9. In the proceedings before the Tribunal that assessee submitted that the main object of the Company since incorporation is to carry on the business of leasing of premises. In pursuing this objective, the assessee purchased the land and started constructing the Mall premises. The premises in the Mall

SHRI VISHAL JAGDISHBHAI MEHTA,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property is hereby upheld. All the grounds are disposed off accordingly.” 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee contended before us that the original assessment order was passed on 24-3-2014, and while passing the original assessment order, all details in respect of the aforementioned property

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

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

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO, CPC, BANGALORE-PRESENT -THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

79 ITD 539], which held that Section 26, being a special provision, overrides the general provisions of Section 167B and when the shares of co-owners are specific and ascertainable, the income is to be taxed in the hands of individual co-owners, and the levy of surcharge at MMR under Section 167B of the Act is not warranted. This

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO,CPC, BANGALORE- PRESENT ITO. WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

79 ITD 539], which held that Section 26, being a special provision, overrides the general provisions of Section 167B and when the shares of co-owners are specific and ascertainable, the income is to be taxed in the hands of individual co-owners, and the levy of surcharge at MMR under Section 167B of the Act is not warranted. This

PARIKH AMITKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai The Dcit 6, Alaknanda Society Circle 1(1)(1) Sama, Vadodara 390 008. Vadodara. Pan : Acppp 2527 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Pate, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

house property for Rs. 83,00,000/- on 27.02.2015 and claimed deduction under section 54 of an equal amount, by treating the entire consideration as capital gain without claiming any cost of acquisition. It was the case of the assessee that Rs.11,00,000/- was paid in advance to Arcadia Developers and the balance amount of Rs.72

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

section (1), for the words "constructed, a residential house", the words "constructed, one residential house in India" shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2015." On query, the assessee explained that he has claimed deduction with regard to one residential house and also placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements. However, the Assessing Officer has not agreed

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 was made in the name of Mandar Kulkarni in his personal capacity (individual) as he is Member of HUF. Assessee’s Bank was not approving home loan in the name of HUF on account of certain internal guidelines. Original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the same was challenged before the CIT(A). Oder

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

House Property 15,54,000/- Long Term Capital Gain 62,60,142/- Income from Other Sources 91,168/- Gross Total Income 79,05,310/- Less: Deduction u/s 80C 30,000/- Total Income Assessed 78,75,310/- 2.8 Penalty proceedings under sections

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

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

section 54F of the Act by observing that the commercial tax department has cancelled the TIN of the supplier of the different building material, the appellant owns more than one house property ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 11 on the date of sale and the capital gain arise from the different properties as claimed by the appellant

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

79,33,788/- on account of investments made in different properties. 12. The assessee in the year under consideration has purchased certain pieces of agricultural lands bearing different survey numbers. Out of such pieces of lands, 3 agricultural lands, which are in dispute, detailed as under: S. Nos. Survey number Amount of investments 1. 125 at Ta. Prantji

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

house property at Flat No. 702, Shree Homes, Gota, Ahmedabad, by making payment on 18.06.2018, and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act to that extent. 3. The Assessing Officer, however, accepted the indexed cost of acquisition based only on the value stated in the sale deed, i.e. Rs.4,79