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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

96,79,796/- 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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHANTI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.884/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 D.C.I.T., Shanti Exports Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4,(1)(1), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ahmedabad. Chiripal House, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad.

96,000.00 only. There is no dispute to the fact that the property which is used for the purpose of the business, the same cannot be made subject to tax under the head house property by virtue of the provisions of section

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

property for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- on 09.01.2013 which has resulted in Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.23,17,183/- after applying cost of indexation. Similarly undisputed fact is the assessee purchased new uncompleted flat on 17.02.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.25,60,000/- and entered into a Construction Agreement for Rs.51

DEEP MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) (1), BARODA

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1719/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Deep Muliplex P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(4) 9, Arunoday Society Baroda. Vs 2, Mangaljyot Apartment Alkapuri Baroda Pan : Aabck 4719 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

section 194I of the Act, the income it has earned was in the nature of rental income, the same was to be treated under the head “income from house property” but and not under “business income: as claimed by the assessee. The AO accordingly calculated income of the assessee at Rs.43,94,534/- under the head “income from house property

SHRI DHANRAJ BAXIRAM CHOPRA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house. 5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate this amendment and wrongly upheld the A.O.'s action of denying the benefits of the provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend

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.

House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: ACKPP7076K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ketan Shah, A.R with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar Sr., DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed

M/S. JAYLAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2226/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 M/S Jaylaxmi Land Developers, Income Tax Officer, B-07 Jaylaxmi Towers, Ward 1, Vs. Anand. Ganesh Chokdi, Post. Anand-388 001. Pan: Aaffj1432Q

96,882/- assessed by the AO and the grounds of the appeal of the assessee, on this issue, are partly allowed." Asstt. Year 2007-08 7 In view of the above, the rental income of the assessee is taxable under the head House Property at the fair market rent and not under the head Business and Profession. 12. The next

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

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 the exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Act by the assessee on account of purchase of land was wrongly allowed to the assessee since

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.4,79,325/-, and disallowed the claim of stamp duty

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

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 24 treating the rent income as 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