INDUSTRIAL CO. OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,KHEDA vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, VADODARA

In the result, the tax appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1064/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Industrial Co-Operative Credit Vs. The Pr.Cit-2 Society Ltd. Vadodara. At-Kanjari, Anand-Nadiad Road Ta. : Nadiad, Dist: Kheda Pan : Aaaai 7424 B

132 (All) vi) Mehsana Dist. Coop Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO, 251 ITR 522 (SC) 4. On consideration of submissions of the assessee, and on the basis of the above judgments, the ld.CIT(A)-2, Vadodara vide order dated 28.12.2015 directed the AO to allow deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and thus, allowed 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)

132,47,53,370 /- is disallowed under u/s 32(1) r.w.s 43(1) r.ws. 43(6)(e) r.w.s 49(1)(iii)(e) r.w.s. 55(2)(a)ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ” 5.1. Thus the AO denied Depreciation on Goodwill as claimed by the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 6. Aggrieved against the assessment order the Assessee filed appeal before

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)

132,47,53,370 /- is disallowed under u/s 32(1) r.w.s 43(1) r.ws. 43(6)(e) r.w.s 49(1)(iii)(e) r.w.s. 55(2)(a)ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ” 5.1. Thus the AO denied Depreciation on Goodwill as claimed by the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 6. Aggrieved against the assessment order the Assessee filed appeal before

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)

132,47,53,370 /- is disallowed under u/s 32(1) r.w.s 43(1) r.ws. 43(6)(e) r.w.s 49(1)(iii)(e) r.w.s. 55(2)(a)ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ” 5.1. Thus the AO denied Depreciation on Goodwill as claimed by the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 6. Aggrieved against the assessment order the Assessee filed appeal before

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)

132,47,53,370 /- is disallowed under u/s 32(1) r.w.s 43(1) r.ws. 43(6)(e) r.w.s 49(1)(iii)(e) r.w.s. 55(2)(a)ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ” 5.1. Thus the AO denied Depreciation on Goodwill as claimed by the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 6. Aggrieved against the assessment order the Assessee filed appeal before

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NCC-MSKEL(JV), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.6,86,60,491/- u/s.80IA of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

M/S. N.C.C.-M.S.K.E.L.(JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.6,86,60,491/- u/s.80IA of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

RAJIV AMRITLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 132(4) and there must be something more than bare suspicion to support assessment or addition - Held, yes - Whether Tribunal had rightly reduced additions made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6][In favour of assessee] 7.4. In the case of ACIT Vs JKD Pearl India Developers (P) Ltd (ITAT Jaipur) in ITA No. 324/ JP/2017 dated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

4,07,132 50,056 15 (Disallowed by assessee in computation ) A.Y. 2016- NIL 25,24,619 0 23,02,38 2,22,237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

4,07,132 50,056 15 (Disallowed by assessee in computation ) A.Y. 2016- NIL 25,24,619 0 23,02,38 2,22,237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

4,07,132 50,056 15 (Disallowed by assessee in computation ) A.Y. 2016- NIL 25,24,619 0 23,02,38 2,22,237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

4,07,132 50,056 15 (Disallowed by assessee in computation ) A.Y. 2016- NIL 25,24,619 0 23,02,38 2,22,237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

4,07,132 50,056 15 (Disallowed by assessee in computation ) A.Y. 2016- NIL 25,24,619 0 23,02,38 2,22,237 17 2 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has made some investments which earned exempt income, therefore the AO applied the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out on the Vaghela Group, including the assessee, on August 30, 2013. Following the search, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated. On February 4, 2014, a notice under section 153A was issued to the assessee, requiring the filing of return of income for Assessment Year

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was carried out on the Vaghela Group, including the assessee, on August 30, 2013. Following the search, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated. On February 4, 2014, a notice under section 153A was issued to the assessee, requiring the filing of return of income for Assessment Year

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 92CA(1) of the Act on account of determination of arm's length price of international transaction entered into by the assessee. 19. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO while relying upon his own decision for the AY 2003-04. 20. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings