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)

119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

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)

2. Over the years, disputes have arisen in respect of the issue whether disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be 36 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT made in cases where no exempt income has accrued, arisen or received by the assessee during an assessment year

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)

2. Over the years, disputes have arisen in respect of the issue whether disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be 36 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT made in cases where no exempt income has accrued, arisen or received by the assessee during an assessment year

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)

2. Over the years, disputes have arisen in respect of the issue whether disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be 36 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT made in cases where no exempt income has accrued, arisen or received by the assessee during an assessment year

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)

2. Over the years, disputes have arisen in respect of the issue whether disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be 36 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT made in cases where no exempt income has accrued, arisen or received by the assessee during an assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

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

B अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) & ….. Cross Objector) Assessee by : Ms. Chandni Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed benefit claimed under section 11(2) of the Act on ground that assessee had failed to furnish Form No. 10 before date of furnishing return under section 139(1) - Assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowing benefit of section 11(2) and thereby treating the amount of Rs. 20,42,00,000/- as income of the Appellant. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in considering Rs. 22,01,68,741/- being corpus donation eligible for deduction

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance on the ground that the allotment of additional shares was disproportionate to present shareholding of the assessee and hence provisions of s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act are applicable. Ld. CIT(Appeals) also gave part relief on the valuation of shares and reduced the same to Rs. 205.55 per share from Rs. 255 per share as worked

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance on the ground that the allotment of additional shares was disproportionate to present shareholding of the assessee and hence provisions of s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act are applicable. Ld. CIT(Appeals) also gave part relief on the valuation of shares and reduced the same to Rs. 205.55 per share from Rs. 255 per share as worked

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in taxing the net surplus of Rs. 40,33,47,248/- as per income and expenditure account as income of the Appellant. Baroda Cricket Association Vs. DCIT Assessment year

MEDIP HEALTHTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

Disallowance u/s 43B of Rs. 4,40,894/- Tax Rate 22% (u/s 30% (Normal CPC denied concessional Applied 115BAA) Rate) rate alleging non-filing of Form No. 10-IC Net Tax Nil Rs. 13,06,300 Demand raised vide Payable intimation 2.3 Subsequently, the CPC suo motu passed a rectification order under section 154 dated 26.04.2022, allowing deduction under section