JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income as per Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the I.T. Rules. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income as per Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the I.T. Rules. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income as per Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the I.T. Rules. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income as per Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the I.T. Rules. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form 10 and Form 10B electronically, before the due date of filing the Return of Income as per Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the I.T. Rules. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is for the reason that all the expenses incurred prior to the commercial production have to be capitalized. 5.8 Furthermore, if the land was acquired not to establish the new manufacturing facility, then the interest cannot be considered as for the purpose of business. ITA nos.884-779/AHD/2014-15 A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2011-12 5 Likewise

M/S. KHYATI CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. CIT,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is for the reason that all the expenses incurred prior to the commercial production have to be capitalized. 5.8 Furthermore, if the land was acquired not to establish the new manufacturing facility, then the interest cannot be considered as for the purpose of business. ITA nos.884-779/AHD/2014-15 A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2011-12 5 Likewise

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

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

36 of 2003), whether or not such transfer is in pursuance of the splitting up or reconstruction or reorganisation of the Board under Part XIII of that Act.] Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant

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

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

36 of 2003), whether or not such transfer is in pursuance of the splitting up or reconstruction or reorganisation of the Board under Part XIII of that Act.] Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant

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

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

36 of 2003), whether or not such transfer is in pursuance of the splitting up or reconstruction or reorganisation of the Board under Part XIII of that Act.] Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant

KOLET RESORT CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 271(1)(c) Kolet Resort Club Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2009-10 - 3– of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that since quantum proceedings for the instant assessment year have been restored by ITAT Ahmedabad to the file of Ld. CIT(A), in assessee’s own case

ITO, WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HEMANT HIRALAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

condoning the delay. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual drawing salary from partnership firm viz. Monarch Infra Venture and showing income from capital gain and income from other sources. For the Asst.Year 2014-15, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.3.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,21,880/-. The return

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

VIII (22) That learned ACIT has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 A /u/s.234 B of I.T. Act, though 100% income as alleged of Rs. 21.84 lakhs (Rs. 2.47 lakhs A.Y. 92-93 + Rs. 19.37 lakhs A.Y. 93-94) has been recovered with interest on or before 31-12-93 and such income so recovered has to be utilized

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

VIII (22) That learned ACIT has erred in charging interest u/s. 234 A /u/s.234 B of I.T. Act, though 100% income as alleged of Rs. 21.84 lakhs (Rs. 2.47 lakhs A.Y. 92-93 + Rs. 19.37 lakhs A.Y. 93-94) has been recovered with interest on or before 31-12-93 and such income so recovered has to be utilized