PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more than the amount which

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more than the amount which

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more than the amount which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more than the amount which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more than the amount which

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) stood reduced from Rs.7

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) stood reduced from Rs.7

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56,70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56,70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56,70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56,70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business