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)

27 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section

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)

27 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section

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)

27 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section

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)

27 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section

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)

27 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) 10(46A) proposes to exempt any income derived by a body or authority, board, trust, or commission, other than a company, established or constituted by or under a central or state act for one or more General Public Utility. Therefore in our considered opinion, the provision to section

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

10 (other than provisions contained in clause 38 thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply. In this regard, we draw support from the coordinate bench’s decision in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010–11, where in paragraphs 46 to 51, the Bench categorically noted that the provisions of section 115JB are self-contained and that disallowance made

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

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

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

27,92,50,000 3 Disallowance due to Allocation of Common 10,19,24,003 Expenses (Inter-unit allocation) 4 Disallowance under Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. However, the above contentions of the A.O. is not correct. Firstly, he has not clearly pointed out which of the conditions laid down u/s. 80-IB (10) are not fulfilled by the appellant. As regarding his averment that Section 80- IB(10) uses the word 'approval' and not ' approvals' for housing project it appears that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. However, the above contentions of the A.O. is not correct. Firstly, he has not clearly pointed out which of the conditions laid down u/s. 80-IB (10) are not fulfilled by the appellant. As regarding his averment that Section 80- IB(10) uses the word 'approval' and not ' approvals' for housing project it appears that

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)

27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4-2000, the substituted Explanation would read: ‘Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income

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)

27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4-2000, the substituted Explanation would read: ‘Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income

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)

27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4-2000, the substituted Explanation would read: ‘Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income

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)

27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4-2000, the substituted Explanation would read: ‘Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income

THE ACIT,(E) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. RAI UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

27,308/- for donations in nature of corpus and of Rs.4,36,79,779/- for addition in assets, were disallowed by the AO. 7.1 I have also noted that in view of the approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) granted by the CIT(Exemptions) for Asst. Year 2014-15, the Appellant has-a point saying that provisions of section

RAI UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT,(E) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

27,308/- for donations in nature of corpus and of Rs.4,36,79,779/- for addition in assets, were disallowed by the AO. 7.1 I have also noted that in view of the approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) granted by the CIT(Exemptions) for Asst. Year 2014-15, the Appellant has-a point saying that provisions of section