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

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)

delay in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned considering Covid-19 Pandamic period and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its Return of Income for assessment year 2015-16 claiming total loss of Rs.23,02,232/-. The return was taken for limited scrutiny assessment and after

MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

condone the delay of 1569 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 9. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting deduction under section 80HHC

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

56,740/-. 6. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who in turn confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising following grounds:- “1. Order u/s 147/148 is bad in Law. 2. Additions

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

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

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

TEJAS C. JOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE 2(2) (PRESENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 912/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) बनाम/ Tejas C Joshi Dy. Commissioner Of 9A, Santosa Park Society, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Aadiraj Bunglow, Central Circle 5(3), Iskon Ambli Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (Original Ahmedabad - 380058 Jurisdiction) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad (Present Jurisdiction) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4735G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 22/11/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2024

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.45,46,760/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessee had purchased a land during the year vide sale deed dated

SHRI MODHESHWARI BACHAT DHIRAN ANE GRAHAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(PREVIOUSLY WARD-5), PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

condonation of delay which is illegal and bad-in-law. I.T.A No. 1977/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 3 Shri Modheshwari Bachat Dhiran Ane Grahak Sakhakri Mandli Ltd. Vs. ITO [3] The appellant therefore requests your Honour to kindly delete the addition of Rs. 3,88,405/- being the interest amount received from the co.op. bank made

SURESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1327 & 1328/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Acit Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Patel Vs. 1, Shayona Darshan & Bunglow, Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ghatlodia, Acit, Circle 6(1), Gujarat – 380061 Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp1167A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R B Tank, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

delay in filing the two appeals is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in these appeals: ITA No.1327/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17 “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, has grievously erred in facts and law while passing the order under consideration 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, erred in facts

SURESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1327 & 1328/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Acit Circle 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad Patel Vs. 1, Shayona Darshan & Bunglow, Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ghatlodia, Acit, Circle 6(1), Gujarat – 380061 Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp1167A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R B Tank, A.R. Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 26/03/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

delay in filing the two appeals is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds in these appeals: ITA No.1327/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17 “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, has grievously erred in facts and law while passing the order under consideration 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC Delhi, erred in facts

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

VII vide order dated 10.04.1997 confirmed the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal of the assessee before this Tribunal, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 08.06.2005 in ITA nos. 2664, 2665/Abad/1997 restored the issue back to ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year

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

VII vide order dated 10.04.1997 confirmed the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal of the assessee before this Tribunal, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 08.06.2005 in ITA nos. 2664, 2665/Abad/1997 restored the issue back to ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year

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)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal. In ground No.1, it has pleaded that assessment was passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In ground Nos.2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore