ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

8. Per contra, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Field Inspection carried out by the Department and the photographs is reproduced in the assessment order clearly depict that there is a residential house namely a bungalow in the property which is habitable in nature, other than the one Raipura House. I.T.A No. 1443/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SHRI DHAVAL D. PATEL,, BARODA

In the result, the file is being restored to the Ld

house property. While passing the order, the ITAT held as below: ■ As per provisions of section 23(1), for the purpose of section 22, annual value of any property shall be deemed to be sum for which property might reasonably be expected to let from year-to-year and where property or any part of property

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 32 of the Act in relation to the aforesaid house property, which was held as investment by the assessee company. Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 7– 7. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. AO looking into the instant facts so as to call for any interference. 8

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property. Thus the assessee claimed the deduction against such rental income under the provisions of section 24 (a) and 24(b) of the Act for Rs. 18,17,612/- and Rs. 8

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property. Thus the assessee claimed the deduction against such rental income under the provisions of section 24 (a) and 24(b) of the Act for Rs. 18,17,612/- and Rs. 8

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property. Thus the assessee claimed the deduction against such rental income under the provisions of section 24 (a) and 24(b) of the Act for Rs. 18,17,612/- and Rs. 8

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

House. Opp. Ahmedabad Gujarat High Court, ITA No.3492/Ahd/2015 and 5 others A.Y. 2010-11 2 S.G. Highway, Gota, Ahmedabad- 380061. PAN : AAACL4089R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date

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

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

SAROVAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2625/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 13A,Pushpkunj Society, Vs. Ward-4(1)(1), Kankaria,Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

8% on the value of the closing stock shown by the assessee, which works out to Rs. 19,05,200/- under section 23 of the Page 3 of 11 Asstt. Years 2014-15 4 Act. Nevertheless, the AO allowed a deduction to the assessee under section 24 on account of repair and maintenance at the rate

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

8. True it is, that income derived from the property would always be termed as ,,income" from the property, but is the property is used as „stock-in-trade", then the said property would become or partake the character of the stock, and any income derived from the stock, would be „income from business", and not income from the property

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

8. True it is, that income derived from the property would always be termed as ,,income" from the property, but is the property is used as „stock-in-trade", then the said property would become or partake the character of the stock, and any income derived from the stock, would be „income from business", and not income from the property