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 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

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

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 PURSHOTTAM B. PITRODA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, RANGE -12,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

house at Shilaj for labour. One residential property is used by proprietor. Other property are used by his daughter and son. So there is no addition as notional income. The value of the all the said properties is Rs.48,57,897/- as per balance sheet. The contention of the assessee is seen and it was observed that the property income

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

section 54 was claimed, but no submission was filed on the date fixed. 2.2 The Assessing Officer noted that during the year the assessee had sold a residential house property for Rs. 83

M/S. OTHELLO DEVELOPERS,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, BARODA

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Othello Developers Ito, Ward-1(2)(4) 402, 4Th Floor Vs Vadodara. R.K. Centre, Fatehgunj Main Road, Fatehgunj Vadodara 390 002. Pan : Aabfo 4301 M

83 (Del) • There were contrary decisions on the issue of ALV on unsold stock of builders being calculated and assessed for tax under the head “income from house property”. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had ruled in favour of the assessee to the effect that unsold units being business stock-in-hand, the income there from was to be assessed

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

83,49,0507- on 0571072011. The permission to non agriculture purpose was made only on 217027201 1. There is no construction started within the three years from the date of sale of residential house. Therefore, the condition laid down in section 54Fjl} thai new house property

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

property was sold on 02.12.20124. The assessee was required to file his return of income for the Asst.Year 2015-16 under section 139 of the Act on 31.8.2015, however, by that date the assessee has filed original return of income on 31.8.2015. Before 31.8.2015, the assessee had re-invested Rs.1,83,60,084/-in residential flat, and receipt

SHRI DASHRATH AMBALAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

house property but only on the fact that for the same property the registration deed was made on 10.10.11, the time limit as stipulated under section 54F of the Act was not adhered hence the deduction was rejected. The appellant emphatically contended that it made investment of Rs.11,11,000/- till 15/12/2006 which was not disputed by A.O. also

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property • Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim holding that assessee, being a company, was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54 - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for raising a patently false claim of deduction - Whether, on facts, Impugned penalty order did not require any interference - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

83,37,613/- adjusted earlier as above, against the gross total income of the assessee and denying deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the business income holding that the eligible profits were to be determined after adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation and since none remained thereafter the assessee was not eligible to deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. He thereafter

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that