THE UTTAR GUJARAT UMA CO.OP.CREDIT SOC. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1670 & 1671/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16)

delay is condoned. 7. Adverting further, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the solitary issue for adjudication in the captioned appeal is whether the assessee society is entitled for deduction of interest earned from surplus invested in private banks and co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under s.80P(2)(d) of the Act as claimed

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

56 of banking Regulation Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. of banking as defined by section-5(b) of the banking regulation act, 1949 which means

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

56 of banking Regulation Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 4 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. of banking as defined by section-5(b) of the banking regulation act, 1949 which means

VIRBALA KIRITKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5 PRESENT JURISDICTION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay is hereby condoned, in the interest of justice. 3. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 250 of the Act by Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to the provisions of law and on facts. 2

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 263 to us, appears to be a plausible explanation, and there is no doubt that in the consequent assessment, the assessee was assessed multiple times to its returned income, which forced him into action and he came to the consult another legal adviser on whose advise the present appeal was filed before us. The delay in filing of appeal

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN : AAJCA 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent

M/S. KOLET RESORT CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri. T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri. T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 M/s. Kolet Resort Club The ITO, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1)(2), Near Telav Village, Vs Ahmedabad Sarkhej, Sanand Road, Sanand-382110 PAN: AAACK8607J Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Prateek Sharma

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

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

b) a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project,(c) a water supply project , water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system , (d) a port , airport , inland water waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. Explanation below sub-section 13 to Section 80IA provides

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

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

b) a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project,(c) a water supply project , water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system , (d) a port , airport , inland water waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. Explanation below sub-section 13 to Section 80IA provides

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

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

b) a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project,(c) a water supply project , water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system , (d) a port , airport , inland water waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. Explanation below sub-section 13 to Section 80IA provides

BHAVNABEN SANJAYKUMAR MISTRY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5) PRESENT ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

56(2)(vii)(b) being 1/3 share of the assessee on the ground of discrepancy and stamp duty in as much as there is no discrepancy and the addition made is erroneous without appreciating the facts of the assessee. 3. The issue of the assessee is submitted to be covered by the decision in the case of Amarshiv Construction

SHANTI MULTILINK PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.31/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shanti Multilink Pvt.Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ A-215, Siddhi Vinayak Tower Ward-4(1)(3) Off S.G. Road Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Makarba Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aahcs 1972 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 09/11/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Shanti Multilink Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. Shanti Multilink Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Condonation of delay: 2. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before us. The assessee-company submitted

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone such delay in preferring appeal before us. Both appeals are, therefore admitted. ITA No. 318/Ahd/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17):- 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose

MUNIRABAI MOHAMMADI KALOLWALA,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 28-03-2019. Notice u/s. 142(1) r.w.s. 129 was issued on 19-11-2019 and 29- 11-2019. In response to the same, the assessee filed return of income on 6-12-2019 declaring total income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan