NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital, deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) is permissible? II. The substantial question of law as raised above in ground no. 5 & 6 reproduced above is identical to question of law arising in assessee’s case in respect of assessment year 2004-05 (reproduced below) which is pending before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide Tax Appeal

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital, deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) is permissible? II. The substantial question of law as raised above in ground no. 5 & 6 reproduced above is identical to question of law arising in assessee’s case in respect of assessment year 2004-05 (reproduced below) which is pending before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide Tax Appeal

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now. 3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of the Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital, such limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section becoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance capped at Rs.10

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of\nthe Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital,\nsuch limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section\nbecoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc\ndisallowance capped at Rs.10

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of\nthe Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital,\nsuch limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section\nbecoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc\ndisallowance capped at Rs.10

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

36(1) (viii) of\nthe Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital,\nsuch limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section\nbecoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc\ndisallowance capped at Rs.10

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36(1) (viii) of\nthe Act limits deduction that can be allowed and in absence of share capital,\nsuch limitation would become inapplicable (rather than the whole section\nbecoming inapplicable). It is submitted that it be so held now.\n\n3. The NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the ad-hoc\ndisallowance capped at Rs.10

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from