THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA SUP-OFFICIALS CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

iv) In this case, the assessee, which is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, has earned two kinds of interest income namely, interest income from loans given to members and interest income from fixed deposits made with SBI. The interest income received from loans given to members will be deductible u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) as it derived from

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

80P(2)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had not debited indirect expenses from the same and therefore relying on the judgment of Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd.-vs-CIT reported in 76 Taxman 36 Guj (1994) on the ratio that deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(iv) was to be allowed on net profit and gain

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

80P(2)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had not debited indirect expenses from the same and therefore relying on the judgment of Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd.-vs-CIT reported in 76 Taxman 36 Guj (1994) on the ratio that deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(iv) was to be allowed on net profit and gain

GUJARAT FISHERIES CENTRE CO .OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABDA vs. ITO, WRAD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains (STCG) on sale of depreciable assets u/s 50 of the Act and the same was not offered for taxation. The principal CIT noted that the same was also not allowable for deduction under the provisions of section 80P of the Act and the same was wrongly allowed by the AO while finalizing the assessment without examining the facts

THE DY. CIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. M/S. KAIRA DIST. CO.-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2218/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/S. Kaira District Co-Op. Milk, Anand Circle, Vs. Producers Union Ltd., Anand. Amul Dairy Road, Anand-388001. Pan: Aaaak8694F

80P(2)(d) held that assessee cannot borrow the money for temporary investment. He has also submitted that even Gujarat High Court in assessee's own case while dealing with issue of re-opening u/s. 148 for disallowing the deduction of interest observed that AO is conscious about the claim made by the assessee and the position of interest earned

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

Gain earned of Rs.16,63,000/- and shown in return. Hence the total expenses incurred of Rs.1,09,37,000- including cost of land, stamp and registration expenses, Brokerage, Land development expense and compensation paid to plot holder to vacate I.T.A No. 1357/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 7 Mr. Pranjal Patel vs. Pr. CIT the plot booked were necessary

THE CO. OP.CREDIT SOCIETY OF VISANAGAR LTD,VISANAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-PATAN, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

gains of business or profession", the provisions of section 57 would apply which govern the allowing of expenses from earning of interest income and other similar incomes chargeable u/s 56 of the Act. Therefore, the allowing of expenses would be allowed strictly in view of the provisions of section 57 of the Act. For the instant reference, the same

M/S. ISCON MEGACITY MEMBERS ASSOCIATION ,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMP. ), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

iv) CIT vs. Manekbaug Co-operative Housing Soc.Ltd. 208 Taxman 5644 (Guj.) (v) Chelmsford Club vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 89/109 Taxman 215 (SC). 5.1. I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. It is evident from the income & expenditure statement that the appellant has credited Rs.54,87,950/- as a maintenance