DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee’s case before the authorities below is this that explanation to section 11(2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee’s case before the authorities below is this that explanation to section 11(2

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee’s case before the authorities below is this that explanation to section 11(2

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.UNITED WAYOF BARODA, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and disallowed a sum of Rs.19,38,286/- out of interest and Rs. 2,15,058/- on account of administrative expenses being 0,5% of the average value of investment. The average value of investment in the shares and securities was considered by the AO at Rs.4,30,11

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

11 Varun Satyapal Singhal vs. DCIT under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act by holding that the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2010 can be held to be retrospective from AY 2005- 06. Now, so far as the disallowance made under section 40A(2

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

disallowance of 1/4th of such interest paid @12% ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah vs. DCIT] A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 - 11 – to the related parties as being excessive and unreasonable under Section 58(2

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

disallowance of 1/4th of such interest paid @12% ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai Vadilal Shah vs. DCIT] A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 - 11 – to the related parties as being excessive and unreasonable under Section 58(2