ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

89 Taxmann.com 366High Court2017#9189 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 22section 2(15)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)delay in filing appealfurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 12aaconcealment of income

Judgments citing ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 388, 379, 389 & 386/Ahd/2023 Asst Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The ACIT (Exemption) Vadodara Urban Circle-2, Development Authority Ahmedabad Vs Vuda Bhavan, L & T Circle, Karelibaug, Vadodara Gujarat 390018 PAN: AAABV0141M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue Rep: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR & Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Assessee Rep: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. Date of hearing : 15-02-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-02-2024 आदेश/ORDE…

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 388, 379, 389 & 386/Ahd/2023 Asst Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The ACIT (Exemption) Vadodara Urban Circle-2, Development Authority Ahmedabad Vs Vuda Bhavan, L & T Circle, Karelibaug, Vadodara Gujarat 390018 PAN: AAABV0141M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue Rep: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR & Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Assessee Rep: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. Date of hearing : 15-02-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-02-2024 आदेश/ORDE…

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 388, 379, 389 & 386/Ahd/2023 Asst Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The ACIT (Exemption) Vadodara Urban Circle-2, Development Authority Ahmedabad Vs Vuda Bhavan, L & T Circle, Karelibaug, Vadodara Gujarat 390018 PAN: AAABV0141M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue Rep: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR & Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Assessee Rep: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. Date of hearing : 15-02-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-02-2024 आदेश/ORDE…

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos: 388, 379, 389 & 386/Ahd/2023 Asst Years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The ACIT (Exemption) Vadodara Urban Circle-2, Development Authority Ahmedabad Vs Vuda Bhavan, L & T Circle, Karelibaug, Vadodara Gujarat 390018 PAN: AAABV0141M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue Rep: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR & Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Assessee Rep: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. Date of hearing : 15-02-2024 Date of pronouncement : 28-02-2024 आदेश/ORDE…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Toshniwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 05/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Surat Urban Development Circle-2, Authority(SUDA), Ahmedabad Suda Bhavan, Nr. Collector Office, Nanpura, Surat, Gujarat [PAN No. AAALS0197G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR Assessee by : Shri Prateek Toshniwal, Advocate Date of Hearing 02.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 06.12.2021 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant a…

SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA),SURAT vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee's appeal is thus allowed

ITA 955/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 2(15)Section 22

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 955/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Surat Urban बनाम/ Dy.CIT (Exemptions) Circle-2, Ahmedabad Development Authority Vs. (SUDA) Suda Bhavan, Nr. Collector Office, Nanpura, Surat - 395001 .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2432 & 2433/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy.CIT (Exemptions) Surat Urban बना…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),, VADODARA

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2437/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT – D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20)(A)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2017 Vadodara Urban Development Authority Asst.Years-2012-13, 2013-14, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2014-15 High Court passed in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority-vs- ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT-vs-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2017] 89 Taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) where the claim of the assessee has been allowed in its proper prospective. He further relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 where the claim of the assessee was upheld. The Learned DR however, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 7. Heard the respective parti…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),, VADODARA

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2436/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT – D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20)(A)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2017 Vadodara Urban Development Authority Asst.Years-2012-13, 2013-14, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2014-15 High Court passed in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority-vs- ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT-vs-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2017] 89 Taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) where the claim of the assessee has been allowed in its proper prospective. He further relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 where the claim of the assessee was upheld. The Learned DR however, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 7. Heard the respective parti…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),, VADODARA

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2435/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT – D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20)(A)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2017 Vadodara Urban Development Authority Asst.Years-2012-13, 2013-14, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2014-15 High Court passed in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority-vs- ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT-vs-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2017] 89 Taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) where the claim of the assessee has been allowed in its proper prospective. He further relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 where the claim of the assessee was upheld. The Learned DR however, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 7. Heard the respective parti…

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1693/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT – D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20)(A)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2017 Vadodara Urban Development Authority Asst.Years-2012-13, 2013-14, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2014-15 High Court passed in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority-vs- ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT-vs-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2017] 89 Taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) where the claim of the assessee has been allowed in its proper prospective. He further relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 where the claim of the assessee was upheld. The Learned DR however, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 7. Heard the respective parti…

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VUDA),,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, out of the five appeals two preferred by assessee are allowed and rest three preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1692/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT – D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20)(A)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2017 Vadodara Urban Development Authority Asst.Years-2012-13, 2013-14, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2014-15 High Court passed in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority-vs- ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT-vs-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2017] 89 Taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) where the claim of the assessee has been allowed in its proper prospective. He further relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 where the claim of the assessee was upheld. The Learned DR however, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 7. Heard the respective parti…

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, BARODA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is thus allowed

ITA 2751/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20)(A)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…l for the assessee submitted before us that the case is covered by the judgments of Jurisdictional High Court passed in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority-vs-ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT-vs-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [2017] 89 Taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) where the claim of the assessee has been allowed in it proper prospective. The Learned DR however, relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. We find that in similar set of facts the Jurisdictional High Vadodara Urban Developme…

ACIT 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) and CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (89 Taxmann.com 366) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax