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

business of builders and property developers, and bringing the same to lax in the hands of the assessee under ihe head ,,Income from house property". We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations set aside the order of the CIT(A). 11. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following

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

business of builders and property developers, and bringing the same to lax in the hands of the assessee under ihe head ,,Income from house property". We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations set aside the order of the CIT(A). 11. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar\Nand\Nshri Makarand V. Mahadeokar\Nआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1654/Ahd/2024 & 1656/Ahd/2024\Nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17 Respectively\Ndeputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax\Ncircle-1(1)(1)\Nvadodara 390 007\Nबनाम /\Nv/S.\Ngujrat State Electricity\Ncorporation Limited\Nsardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan\Nrace Course Circle\Nalkapuri, Baroda – 390 007\N(Gujarat)\Nस्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F\N(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\N(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\Nassessee By:\Nshri Manish J. Shah &\Nshri Jimi Patel, Ars\Nrevenue By :\Nshri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr\Nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing\N:\N16/01/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:\N20/01/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:\Nboth The Appeals By The Revenue For Assessment Years (Ays) 2012-13\Nand 2016-17 Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income\Ntax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter\Nreferred To As “Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act,\N1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Cit(A) Orders Arose From The\Nassessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, By The Deputy\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred\Nto As “Ao"], Dated 25.02.2015 (Ay 2012-13) & 28.12.2018 (Ay 2016-17).\N2.\Nthe Primary Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Treatment Of Interest\Nincome On Loans & Advances Provided To Employees, Amounting To\Nrs.4,56,05,000/- (Ay 2012-13) & Rs.8,00,35,000/- (Ay 2016-17).\N2.

business\nof lending and the loans served only personal benefits for employees.\nSimilarly, in the assessment order dated 28.12.2018, the AO classified\nRs.8,00,35,000/- under \"income from other sources\" with the same rationale.\n3. 1. The issue travelled before the Tribunal in the first round of appeal and\nthe Co-ordinate Bench remanded the matter

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

business of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO is also required to give a clear finding about the borrowings made by the assessee on which the said interest was paid. The next step is that the AO has to examine the sources of the funds which were invested for earning the dividend income. If the source of such investment

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

business income by the Lower Authorities. It is further evident in other co-owner cases, similar reopening of assessments were done and one of the co- owner as against the reassessment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

business of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO is also required to give a clear finding about the borrowings made by the assessee on which the said interest was paid. The next step ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 is that the AO has to examine the sources of the funds which were invested

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

business of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO is also required to give a clear finding about the borrowings made by the assessee on which the said interest was paid. The next step ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 is that the AO has to examine the sources of the funds which were invested

ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue IT[SS]A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

business in the place of 14 % as determined by the Ld CIT[A]. Further substantial real income has also been taxed in the hands of other entities namely Sankalp Ventures LLP, Sankalp Organisers Pvt. Ltd. and Ginger Properties Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the Asst. Years 2013-14 to 2019-20. Thus Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing telescoping

SANKALP IN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result Revenue’s Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

reassess the ‘total income’ u/s.153A of the Act of the unabated/completed assessment. In the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO would not have the jurisdiction to proceed in the unabated/completed year(s), only on the basis of other material. In the present case, during the search action certain incriminating materials were found and I.T.A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the AO as AO had\nrecorded incorrect reasons in as much as he stated that appellant had received bogus\nLTCG and STCG/exempt income whereas the appellant has offered gain/loss arising\nfrom share transactions as \"Income from business

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

business framework. The AR clarified that the CIT(A)’s findings were based solely on the seized material and existing records, without any reliance on fresh evidence or additional claims. It was submitted that the CIT(A) meticulously analyzed the seized diary entries and financial records to arrive at a just conclusion. The AR highlighted those entities within the group

M/S. HARSIDDH QUARRY WORKS,ARAVALLI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

income, thus he can reopen the case limited to the extent of bogus purchase. However, if during the course of assessment proceedings, he comes to know about other expenses for example travelling expenses i.e. the assessee has claimed travelling expenses which were not for the purpose of the business, he (the AO) can also make the dis-allowance of travelling

MANISH RANJAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2015–16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the AO as AO had recorded incorrect reasons in as much as he stated that appellant had received bogus LTCG and STCG/exempt income whereas the appellant has offered gain/loss arising from share transactions as "Income from business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MONARCH NETWORTH CAPITAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly\ndismissed as not pressed.\n17. In the combined result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nA.Ys.2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 are dismissed

reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the AO as AO had\nrecorded incorrect reasons in as much as he stated that appellant had received bogus\nLTCG and STCG/exempt income whereas the appellant has offered gain/loss arising\nfrom share transactions assep\" Income from business

SATYA SANKALP VILLA (ELLISBRIDGE) PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1132/Ahd/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05) िनधा"रण वष" Satya Sankalp Villa The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ward – 8(1), Ahmedabad (Ellisbridge) P. Ltd. Vs. Dharmadev House, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics2707B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2024 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 16.01.2014 For A.Y. 2004-05. 2. This Is Second Round Of Appeal Before This Tribunal. Before We Adjudicate The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal, It Will Be Relevant To Recapitulate The Facts Of The Case.

Business Income & adopting the cost of said property at Rs. 26,16,000/- only 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not granting deduction of Rs 26,28,038- (Rs.17,50,000/- + 9,28,038/-) being the amount paid for eviction of tenants in spite of evidences furnished as per the direction

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

reassessment notice relating to alleged escapement of income relating to disallowance u/s.14A is mere change of opinion on part of the subsequent Assessing Officer, without considering the difference in computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Business Income Rs. 17,15,48,01,173/- C. Capital Gain – [as per Return of income] Rs. 11,37,32,825/- D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs. 18,07,02,90,489/- Brought forward losses

AVANI PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

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

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

business and profession and profit from partnership firm - During scrutiny, Assessing Officer passed assessment order assessing income of assessee as nil Principal Commissioner invoked revisionary proceedings on ground that as per provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D, expenses pertaining to earning exempt income was required to be disallowed even if no exempt income was earned Tribunal observed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment order and submission filed by the appellant. In this case, it is necessary to discuss the brief facts of the case. The facts as enumerated from the assessment order are that during the year under consideration, the appellant was a builder and engaged in the business of construction. The appellant had filed original return of income