THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

56,127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

56,127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

56,127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,735 1,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2

DHANLAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 56(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In view of this proviso, the assessee's case is not covered u/s 56(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. v) The original booking letter dated 07.07.2010 was not available to the assessee and therefore, the assessee requested the builder/organizer i.e. Aqua Infrastructures for issuing copy of letter and it issued

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7,45,63,504/- as against the returned loss and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and partly

GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7,45,63,504/- as against the returned loss and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and partly

THE BAVLA GROUP SEVA SAHAKAR MANDALI LTD,BAVLA, AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. THE SARDAR PAEL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

56,17,547/-. He directed the assessee to explain as to why this commission be not disallowed. In response to the query of the AO, the assessee filed a detailed written submissions which was identically submitted before the ld.CIT(A), and we will be going to take note of the submission in the subsequent part. The AO has gone through

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

56,17,547/-. He directed the assessee to explain as to why this commission be not disallowed. In response to the query of the AO, the assessee filed a detailed written submissions which was identically submitted before the ld.CIT(A), and we will be going to take note of the submission in the subsequent part. The AO has gone through

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

56,17,547/-. He directed the assessee to explain as to why this commission be not disallowed. In response to the query of the AO, the assessee filed a detailed written submissions which was identically submitted before the ld.CIT(A), and we will be going to take note of the submission in the subsequent part. The AO has gone through

SOHAMNAGAR CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY VIBHAG-III,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Us.

56,17,547/-. He directed the assessee to explain as to why this commission be not disallowed. In response to the query of the AO, the assessee filed a detailed written submissions which was identically submitted before the ld.CIT(A), and we will be going to take note of the submission in the subsequent part. The AO has gone through

CHANDRAKANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL HUF ,DABHOI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, 1961. The appellant fails to furnish any decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue. The addition made by the AO is confirmed and the ground taken by the appellant is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved , the assessee has now filed an appeal with the Tribunal . The assessee has filed Paper Book containing

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

viii) Travelling expenses (including foreign travelling) Rs.2485004 Rs.7491607 39. However, the assessee expressed its inability to produce the supporting evidences on the reasoning that all the necessary documents have been seized by the VAT department. Nevertheless, the AO was of the view that VAT department has nothing to do with the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. According