Modi v. DCIT

M/S. Sharnam Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S.Sharnam Realities P.Ltd. Pr.Cit-4 411A, Neelkanth Palace B Vs Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Road Satellite 380 015. Pan : Aaics 9152 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Tushar Hemani, Ar & Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Prap Yadav, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

…property sold; that the Revenue authorities cannot call in question the stamp duty valuation of the property. He relied on the following case laws in this regard: • Gestetner Duplications P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 117 IGTR 1 (SC); • Nitin P. Shah alias Modi Vs. DCIT, 276 ITR 411 (Guj) • APMC Vs. ITO, 355 ITR 384 (Guj) • ITO Vs. E-Infochips Ltd., 124 TTJ 176 (Ahd); • Gujarat Information Technology Funds, 45 SOT 529 (Ahd); 11 • PCIT Vs. BA Research, (2016) 240 Taxman 443 (Guj) • CIT Vs. Quintiles Research (India) P.Ltd., 429 ITR 4 (Kar) He, therefore, contended that the ld.Pr.CIT’s finding of error based on his finding an…

The ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

…in judgement over the approval granted by BOA amounts to judicial indiscipline. In support of this contention he relied on Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision dtd. 07-07-204,the Supreme Court decision cited at l 17 ITR 1, the Gujarat High Court's decisions cited at 276 ITR 411 & 355 ITR 384 &Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision cited 124 TTJ 176 & 45 SOT 529. 3.4 As regards the A.O.'s finding that the appellant infringed SEZ Rules by claiming lease rentals from sister-concern DPCL, it was contended that the DPCL had made application to the Development Commissioner for approval to set up unit in the SEZ on 29-03- 2011;approval…

Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

…in judgement over the approval granted by BOA amounts to judicial indiscipline. In support of this contention he relied on Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision dtd. 07-07-204,the Supreme Court decision cited at l 17 ITR 1, the Gujarat High Court's decisions cited at 276 ITR 411 & 355 ITR 384 &Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision cited 124 TTJ 176 & 45 SOT 529. 3.4 As regards the A.O.'s finding that the appellant infringed SEZ Rules by claiming lease rentals from sister-concern DPCL, it was contended that the DPCL had made application to the Development Commissioner for approval to set up unit in the SEZ on 29-03- 2011;approval…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Zaveri & Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…ditions for its recognition for that year; any other course is bound to result in chaos and uncertainty which has to be avoided.” 32. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin P. Shah alias Modi Vs. DCIT (2005) 276 ITR 411 (Guj.) and decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Information Technology Fund 64 DTR 169(Ahd.). In our considered view, it was not open to the Commissioner of Income Tax to take the view contrary to the approval already granted by the approval committee appointed under SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006. 33. Thus, w…

M/S. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…ditions for its recognition for that year; any other course is bound to result in chaos and uncertainty which has to be avoided.” 32. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin P. Shah alias Modi Vs. DCIT (2005) 276 ITR 411 (Guj.) and decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Information Technology Fund 64 DTR 169(Ahd.). In our considered view, it was not open to the Commissioner of Income Tax to take the view contrary to the approval already granted by the approval committee appointed under SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006. 33. Thus, w…