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 vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 4,04,46,012/- without taking into consideration facts that the assessee could not establish the direct nexus between the funds used for investments and the co-operative society's own funds? 2. Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case

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

80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 4,04,46,012/- without taking into consideration facts that the assessee could not establish the direct nexus between the funds used for investments and the co-operative society's own funds? 2. Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case

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

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(2

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

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

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

section 80P(2)(c) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the assessee is only eligible to claim deduction to the extent of " 50,000/- and the above exemption of " 7,91,000/- has been incorrectly granted by the AO without considering/examining the facts of the case. (iii) During the period under consideration, the assessee has shown short-term

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

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)

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,04,494./- on account of grant received under Sampoorna Gramin Swarojgar Yogna from the Govt. without considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works

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

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)

2) and u/s. 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee, which were claimed by the AO to have been duly served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed submissions before the A.O. It was observed by the A.O. that the assessee is Co-operative Housing Society. The assessee’s main activity

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

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