ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

25,000/- The CIT(A) confirmed Assessee is under Section this disallowance, not in appeal 36(1)(iii) - accepting the assessee's with interest on argument that they had Ground No. loans given to sufficient interest-free 1 a subsidiary funds to cover the loan. without interest. 5 Disallowance Rs. 1,28,273/- The CIT(A) held that Revenue

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

25,000/- The CIT(A) confirmed Assessee is under Section this disallowance, not in appeal 36(1)(iii) - accepting the assessee's with interest on argument that they had Ground No. loans given to sufficient interest-free 1 a subsidiary funds to cover the loan. without interest. 5 Disallowance Rs. 1,28,273/- The CIT(A) held that Revenue

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

section 115JB was justified in law. 10 16. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and carefully examined the material placed before us including the assessee’s detailed submissions, the paper book, and the judicial precedents cited by both sides. The assessee suo motu disallowed a sum of Rs. 8,25

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)

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

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)

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

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)

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

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)

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

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)

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

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)

25 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) difference in facts of VUDA vis-à-vis AUDA and hence it is clear that provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act is also not applicable to VUDA. In fact through its rejoinders dated 22.02.2023 (as quoted above), the appellant has further clarified this aspect with various details based

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

10 discernible from the order of the ld.CIT(A) how he arrived at the figure of Rs.42,00,867/- being the average investment. The disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D is to be in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

25% to 30%. As held by this Court in case af Moon Star Developers [supra] every case of even marginal underutilization of FSI would not be hit by disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act." (Emphasis supplied) 4.3.3. The Id. Authorized Representative has drawn my attention to the various factors which a Developer keeps in mind while demarking

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

25% to 30%. As held by this Court in case af Moon Star Developers [supra] every case of even marginal underutilization of FSI would not be hit by disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act." (Emphasis supplied) 4.3.3. The Id. Authorized Representative has drawn my attention to the various factors which a Developer keeps in mind while demarking

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

10. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. ITA No. 414/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 11. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “(a)(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 10(23AAA) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(Appeals) against the intimation order passed CPC. The assessee contended during appellate proceedings before CIT(Appeals) that its income was actually exempt under alternative provisions as well, namely Sections 10(25

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

25-06-2019 held that amount of disallowance u/s. 14A worked out as per provision of Rule 8D cannot be made to income computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. 3. The Ld AO held that nowhere in the section provides that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made only if assessee has earned exempt income during the year, hence the claim

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

25-06-2019 held that amount of disallowance u/s. 14A worked out as per provision of Rule 8D cannot be made to income computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. 3. The Ld AO held that nowhere in the section provides that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made only if assessee has earned exempt income during the year, hence the claim

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

25-06-2019 held that amount of disallowance u/s. 14A worked out as per provision of Rule 8D cannot be made to income computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. 3. The Ld AO held that nowhere in the section provides that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made only if assessee has earned exempt income during the year, hence the claim

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

25-06-2019 held that amount of disallowance u/s. 14A worked out as per provision of Rule 8D cannot be made to income computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. 3. The Ld AO held that nowhere in the section provides that disallowance u/s.14A is to be made only if assessee has earned exempt income during the year, hence the claim