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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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)

34,600/- made by the AO ? (iii) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in not upholding the addition of Rs.36,66,427/-made on account of fixed assets and directing to allow the same u/s.11(1) of the Act after verification ? 3. Assessment Year 2016-17 is the taken as the lead case

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

34,69,516/-, and after reducing the amount already disallowed suo motu by the assessee, made a net disallowance of Rs.8,26,43,616/-. This amount was also added back to the book profits under section 115JB while computing minimum alternate tax. 10

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

disallowed the Assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IB (10) in respect of the appellant's housing project 'Pratham Vista' by stating that the Raja Chitti/Layout Plan consisted of 158 residential units of which 55 residential units had buildup area which exceeded the prescribed built up area of 1500 sft. in contravention of the provisions of section 80IB(10

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

disallowed the Assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IB (10) in respect of the appellant's housing project 'Pratham Vista' by stating that the Raja Chitti/Layout Plan consisted of 158 residential units of which 55 residential units had buildup area which exceeded the prescribed built up area of 1500 sft. in contravention of the provisions of section 80IB(10

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

34. The CIT(A) further referred to the statutory definition of “amalgamation” under section 2(1B) of the Act, which mandates that all properties and liabilities of the amalgamating company must vest in the amalgamated company, and shareholders of the amalgamating company must become shareholders of the amalgamated company to the extent of at least 75%. Reference was also made

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

34. The CIT(A) further referred to the statutory definition of “amalgamation” under section 2(1B) of the Act, which mandates that all properties and liabilities of the amalgamating company must vest in the amalgamated company, and shareholders of the amalgamating company must become shareholders of the amalgamated company to the extent of at least 75%. Reference was also made

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)

34 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT part of the total income." The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section

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)

34 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT part of the total income." The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section

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)

34 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT part of the total income." The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section

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)

34 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT part of the total income." The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section

M/S. SAMRAT CORPORATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(3),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

disallowing assessee’s deduction claim. 7. We have heard rival submissions. We have already indicated that the sole question arising for our apt adjudication is whether or not the assessee is entitled for Section 80IB(10) deduction in above set of facts. It is no more in dispute that Section 80IB(10) deduction does not envisage ownership of the plot

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

34,425/- Com Rs. 1700+ 12.50% Tax each purchased for Assocham functions at Hydrabad as per bill No. 0329 dt. 27/01/2014 enclosed. ITA Nos. 386/Ahd/2019 & 553/Ahd/2019 Assessee : Rai University : AY : 2014-15 6 23. Vinay Rai AEPC Card Being amt of hotel stay charges 95,074/- No. 3769- for Ms. J. Panda & Mrs. Usha 161139-51001. Aggrawal during visit

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

34,425/- Com Rs. 1700+ 12.50% Tax each purchased for Assocham functions at Hydrabad as per bill No. 0329 dt. 27/01/2014 enclosed. ITA Nos. 386/Ahd/2019 & 553/Ahd/2019 Assessee : Rai University : AY : 2014-15 6 23. Vinay Rai AEPC Card Being amt of hotel stay charges 95,074/- No. 3769- for Ms. J. Panda & Mrs. Usha 161139-51001. Aggrawal during visit