ANAND URBAN CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.101 & 102/Ahd/2017 [Asstt.Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13] Asstt.Year : 2014-15

depreciation. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of DICGC interest payable of Rs. 14,95,276/-. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts

ANAND URBAN CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.101 & 102/Ahd/2017 [Asstt.Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13] Asstt.Year : 2014-15

depreciation. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of DICGC interest payable of Rs. 14,95,276/-. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR, PRAHLAD NAGAR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PORODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation and additional depreciation claimed on CANs and Equipments amounting to Rs. 1,07,64,866/- when it is clear that Milk Cans

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the Assessment Year in question? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation and additional depreciation claimed on CANs and Equipments amounting to Rs. 1,07,64,866/- when it is clear that Milk Cans

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, BORIA, HIMATNAGAR

Appeal is dismissed

Section 32(1)(ii) with respect to the\n Assessment Year in question?\n3.\nWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld\nCIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation and additional depreciation claimed on\nCANs and Equipments amounting to Rs.1,07,64,866/- when it is clear that Milk Cans and\nEquipment

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) of the Act., whereas in the said cases referred to by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the issue pertained to disallowance of deduction u/s. 36(ll)(iii) of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

depreciation. Further, it was submitted that in the case of group concern of the assessee, Chittorgarh Kota Baran Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, similar expenditure has been allowed as revenue expenditure. The assessee further submitted that the assessee company is also eligible for claiming for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act and relied on Gujarat High Court decision

GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON FEDERATION LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) provided for income received from marketing of agricultural produce grown by members of co-operative society and purchase of seeds etc. for the purpose of supplying them to its members. Thus, Pr. CIT held that, the Assessing Officer has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80P

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 Rs.2,32,84,772/- disregarding the provisions of section 80-AB of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowances of additional depreciation

KAIRA DIST.CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

depreciation claimed on the portion of plant and machinery acquired through grant/subsidy received from NDDB under 70% loan and 30% grant scheme by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahesana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. CIT without considering the aspect that the said decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High

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)

depreciation. The other expenses of Rs.13,18,256/- were disallowed to the assessee. 14. Dissatisfied with this action of the Assessing Officer, assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner further granted opportunity to the assessee, particularly, assessee has claimed 90% of the salary and bonus which has been restricted to 50% by the Assessing Officer. He reduced

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member)

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 2522/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 2 DCIT Vs. Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, ANAND

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.It No. 2554/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 M/S. Charotar Nagrik Vs. Ito, Sahakari Bank Ltd. Ward-1, Chiman Sathi Bhavan, Anand Subhash Road, Anand- 388 001 Pan:Aab Fc3 231 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(herein after referred as ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2013-14 with the following grounds: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-4, Vadodara has erred in law on facts of the case by confirming the determination of income of the appellant as income from other sources instead of income

SOHAMNAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VIBHAG II,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 17-01-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048850676(1)

depreciation and had also failed to justify apportionment of expenditure to earning of interest income, its claim was rightly rejected by authorities below - Held, yes [Paras 32 and 35][In favour of revenue]" 6.8 The facts of the appellant's case is squarely covered with the facts of the case decided by ITAT Pune Bench. Keeping in view the aforesaid