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)

l ,e ,e-lh* ,e lh* lh* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] loZJh egkohj

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

THE UMRETH URBAN CO. OP.BANK LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE DCIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

L account Rs.7,54,500/- on account of loss on sale of securities. The AO disallowed the same on the ground that the loss was in capital nature. The AO made further additions also and completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on the total income of Rs.1,22,72,640/-. 4. Thereafter assessee preferred first statutory appeal before

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SABARKANTHA CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR vs. THE SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO.-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,, HIMATNAGAR

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

80P(2(d) of the Act. Therefore, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld.” During the year as submitted by the assessee in its submission before the ld. CIT(A) discussed at page no. 15 of the CIT(A)’s order that assessee was having

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

l)(c) of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset we note that the appeal is time barred by 243 days. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company did not have in-house consultants